So we're getting really close to the opening of the I-495 HOT Lanes, and we just broke ground on the I-95 HOT Lanes. Here are some of my thoughts about how useful these will actually be...
I-495:
I think these will work relatively well for people staying in Virginia. Some extra capacity was badly needed between Springfield and Tysons Corner. I think a significant benefit will come just to those who use the Tysons Corner interchanges. Today, it can take 15+ minutes just to drive the length of the entrance/exit ramps during peak times, and having "artificially" uncongested interchanges (due to tolls/occupancy requirements) on the HOT lanes will be a huge benefit to those who choose to use the lanes. I see some minor operational issues at the south end, just because you have so many lanes converging and diverging there, and during rush hours for the first couple years, toll payers will have to exit into the regular lanes to get to I-95 south, as the I-95 reversible lanes will be HOV-3 only. I see some bigger problems at the northern end, northbound, during PM peak hours. According to Dr. Gridlock in the Washington Post, the operators of the lanes don't expect much traffic to use them north of Tysons Corner. I don't believe that. There are plenty of people who will gladly pay to use the lanes between Tysons and the north end to avoid the interchange delays that I mentioned above. To them, its a sweet deal, because the toll will be relatively cheap since they will only be in the lanes for a short time before they end. I predict there will be some congestion in the HOT lanes approaching the merge point. But like the I-95 HOV merge in Dumfries, the higher density of traffic in the regular lanes vs. the artificially constrained traffic in the HOT lanes (or starved traffic in the HOV lanes in the case of I-95, since there are no entrances south of Springfield) means the line to reach the merge point will be longer in the regular lanes than in the HOT lanes. In otherwords, there will still be a jam leading to the American Legion Bridge, but HOT users will skip ahead in the line.
I think that, in general, the lanes will be underutilized on weekends. There is just not much traffic on that portion of the Beltway on weekends, you just have local traffic which will use the regular lanes for free. Long distance traffic will be on the east side of the Beltway.
I-95:
A little bit of benefit for rush hour commuters (especially afternoon commuters), little to no benefit for weekend drivers. Let me start by saying that there is a huge elephant in the room that has not really been addressed...that is that weekend traffic on I-95 is very different from weekday commute traffic, and although everyone will acknowledge that weekends on I-95 are awful, no one has yet to come out and admit that this project will do little to change that. So lets start with weekdays. Here we have traffic that is very directional (north in the AM, south in the PM), and is focused from the southern suburbs into DC via I-395. The reversible lane facility serves this traffic well.
In the afternoon, you'll have HOV-3 traffic from Pentagon/DC joined by some single occupant /HOV-2 vehicles from the mainline of I-395. You'll take on a bunch of traffic from the I-495 HOT lanes coming from Tysons. You'll have an extra lane as far as Prince William Parkway...which is something more than you have now. As you pass each interchange, enough commuters will exit the mainline and HOT lanes, such that the merge point at Garrisonville Road won't be too bad, at least not as bad as the merge point is in Dumfries today. Think about it, many of those HOT lane users going to Stafford County will not have to enter the regular lanes, whereas they do now. But the key thing is that as you head south, people get off to go to their homes, leaving more room in the regular lanes/less traffic in the HOT lanes to get to the new merge point.
Northbound, in the morning, I think the lanes will work okay up to but not including the end of the HOT lanes at Edsal Road. You're going to have more lanes feeding a chokepoint. The mainline lanes of I-395 will be very congested approaching this merge point. HOT lane users will get to the front of the line, but will still ultimately have to merge. We can only hope that enough of the tollpayers are going to Tysons and not up I-395, that is what will keep the merge from becomming awful. Perhaps the lane operators could make the toll for the segment between the Beltway and Edsal Road very high, thereby encouraging Tysons commuters but discouraging DC commuters from using the lanes, or at the least, getting DC commuters out of the lanes a little earlier than at the very very end. Also, the operators should play up the fact that anyone with HOV-2 has another option...rather than merge onto I-395, they could continue paying tolls and use the I-495 lanes, and then take I-66 inbound to Arlington and DC (would really only work well for the west side of DC and Arlington, would be too out of the way for Capitol Hill).
Weekends, going south: Not going to do a darn bit of good. Remember that on weekdays, as you travel south, people get off at the interchanges, freeing up space in the mainline lanes and reducing the volume in the HOT lanes. Weekends, not so much. On weekends, a much greater percentage of traffic is in it for the long haul to Richmond and beyond, for everyone who takes a local exit, there's a local person going to the beach who gets on in their place. So all you are doing is moving the merge south about 8 miles. But since HOT lanes are artifically starved of traffic because of the tolls, HOT lane drivers will simply move to the front of the line, and regular lane drivers will sit in worse traffic than they do today. In order to have a big impact, these HOT lanes would need to be extended down to Fredericksburg. That is where the real weekend bottleneck is, at the Rappahannock. There you have I-95 traffic and people bypassing DC via US 17 merging, and then a lot of local traffic exiting at Route 3 and Massaponax, so the bridge is the chokepoint. If you extended the HOT lanes there, you'd increase the capacity of the bottleneck. Absent that, the bottleneck is still there.
Weekends, going north: like described above, the Rappahannock is the big bottleneck. The lanes don't begin until beyond there. But it will bring that point where the road opens up a little bit further south, so it might help a little north of Fredericksburg. Hopefully enough traffic will actually use the lanes to pull enough traffic out of the mainline lanes to give some congestion relief. But don't count on it!
Some more points to consider with I-95's heavy weekend and holiday traffic.... If you're a commuter, on Friday afternoons you'll be competing with all of those vacationers for space in those HOT lanes. I'd expect that the price will be very very high on Fridays. If I'm taking my once-yearly trip to Virginia Beach, I won't mind paying a $50 toll to escape the frustration of the regular lanes as much as the commuters that won't be able to afford that on a regular basis. In otherwords, the vacationers will price-out the locals, since the vacationers only have to do it once. The other thought, which should be obvious....on some days, especially on summer weekends and around Thanksgiving...the traffic is bad in both directions. One direction will be helped by HOT lanes, but the other will be just as bad off as today with no help from additional lanes. I hope they at least keep the schedule similar to the way it is now, as right now the lanes are optimized for northern Virginians taking weekend trips out of the area on Friday/Saturday morning and coming back Saturday evening/Sunday, as well as leaving before a long holiday weekend and coming home at the end. Otherwise the lanes would be benefitting those from Richmond and North Carolina more than the locals.
In the meantime, prepare to suffer a lot during construction. As it is now, the lanes will be closed during weekday overnights for roadwork including Friday night. So when the lanes open on Saturday morning, VDOT will have them pointed north (since the portion from Edsal Road to DC will be open north during the closures further south), meaning those escaping town on Saturday will not have the benefit of the lanes. I would easily forsee some complete weekend closures, which can really make a big mess of traffic.
Very good post.
I'm not a fan of the I-95 project for a number of reasons, the main one being that the center HOV carriageway is currently open to all traffic during the non-HOV hours (except while the road is being reversed) and the majority of that traffic will now be pushed into the general-purpose lanes, which in turn is likely to push traffic there onto the limited parallel routes like US-1.
There's one very significant difference between the I-95 and Beltway projects that has not gotten a lot of mention, although Mike touches on it: The I-95 lanes have places where you can move back into the mainline. The Beltway lanes do not. That means that on the Beltway lanes, when you enter the lanes you lock in the toll rate to your destination. For example, the sign at Route 7 in Tysons Corner may list tolls of $3.00 to I-66, $6.00 to Braddock Road, and $8.00 to Springfield (this means Gallows Road would be around $4.00 since it's between I-66 and Braddock). If you're going to Springfield, your toll is $8.00. It won't go up while you're in the lanes.
That's not going to be the case on I-95. The information on the project website says that the tolls will be for "segments" of the lanes and that the toll for the "next segment" will be posted in advance so you can decide whether to stay in the lanes or exit into the general-purpose lanes. So suppose you're driving south from DC late at night as a solo driver (since I assume the HOV lanes north of the Turkeycock ramps will still be open to all traffic during non-HOV hours). As you pass Duke Street, you see a sign giving you toll info. It will list tolls for the Beltway, Route 644, and the exit to the general-purpose lanes just beyond Route 644. If you want to go to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, that's on the next "segment" and you won't know what that rate is until you've already entered the lanes and paid the toll (though practically speaking the added toll would likely be minimal due to the short distance). The second tolled "segment" includes the Franconia—Springfield Parkway (VA-289) and then ends at the slip ramp marked "Lorton" just south of the Newington interchange. The third "segment" would then be much longer, including the US-1, VA-123, and VA-294 (Prince William Parkway) exits, with the segment ending at the flyover ramp just north of Potomac Mills Mall. (This all assuming they don't add additional entry and exit points. I know there is to be a new Express Lanes exit at Newington connecting to Alban Road and Boudinot Drive, but that's different from a flyover or slip ramp to the general-purpose lanes).
The Beltway system sounds a lot easier to understand because, let's be realistic, the average person who might use these lanes won't bother to educate himself on these kinds of issues. The amount of uninformed emotional bullshit rants I see regarding the Beltway project both amuses and disgusts me. But I think some of the rants have a bit more legitimacy as to I-95 and I wonder how the project will make it crystal clear to drivers that when the sign gives the toll to, say, Newington, it means that if you want to continue past Newington you will pay a separate toll at a rate to be announced when you reach Newington. I don't think it's unreasonable at all for people to demand that this information be made as unambiguous as possible. What concerns me about it is that people will have seen how the Beltway system works and they'll assume I-95 will work the same way. I suppose that's not necessarily a reasonable assumption, but it's reasonable to assume people will make that assumption (I hope that made sense).
BTW, I've seen the slugging community objecting to the HO/T project on the ground that they feel that they were lied to when they were told HOV will ride free. They feel that the institution of a monthly fee for the E-ZPass Flex is a violation of the promise that HOV will ride free and they think they shouldn't have to get transponders. I don't entirely buy the argument and the reason is a practical one: The vast majority of Northern Virginia drivers who would benefit from having an E-ZPass device for roads other than the new HO/T lanes already have an E-ZPass. (I know one guy who should but doesn't, but he's a special case–a bit of a kook because he feels getting an E-ZPass means that he's tacitly approving of the Dulles Metrorail project. Whatever.) Anyway, VDOT's announced that the E-ZPass Flex will be free PROVIDED you use it SOLELY in "HOV mode" and SOLELY in the new HO/T lanes on I-95 and the Beltway (you also have to use it at least once a month–if you fail to use it, or if you use it anywhere other than the HO/T lanes, or if you drive in the HO/T lanes with the device in "non-HOV mode," you pay the fee for that month). It seems to me that a driver who does not now have any use for an E-ZPass is unlikely to see his travel habits change so radically that he'll suddenly benefit from having one, such that if he continues his normal routine–say, a slug driver who picks up two people in Prince William County and drives to the Pentagon–he will pay neither a toll nor the E-ZPass fee.
WTOP Radio: Beltway Express Lanes given a test (http://www.wtop.com/41/2994889/Beltway-Express-Lanes-given-a-test)
QuoteThe Express Lanes being built on the Virginia side of the Capital Beltway aren't officially open yet, but that doesn't mean cars aren't driving on them.
QuoteA number of test vehicles started cruising the brand new lanes this week. The test is all about the electronics of the road.
Anyone have a picture of the E-ZPass Flex transponders. Curious if they are based on the newer/smaller Mark IV transponders currently in use for SC's Palmetto Pass or if its the older design all the E-ZPass agencies are required to use.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 15, 2012, 07:51:56 PM
Anyone have a picture of the E-ZPass Flex transponders. Curious if they are based on the newer/smaller Mark IV transponders currently in use for SC's Palmetto Pass or if its the older design all the E-ZPass agencies are required to use.
The Virginia E-ZPass site has an image of the E-ZPass Flex transponder here (http://www.ezpassva.com/EZPages/EZPassFlex.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).
This (http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2011/07/cost-of-ez-pass-transponder-to-drop-by.html) article has an image of a "regular" MdTA E-ZPass transponder.
Peter Samuel of TOLLROADSnews wrote about the Mark IV transponders in use in South Carolina in 2007 here (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/141). If North Carolina becomes a member of the E-ZPass IAG (which is supposed to happen soon), then South Carolina might just want to follow along for the convenience of persons using the Palmetto Pass.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
Weekends, going north: like described above, the Rappahannock is the big bottleneck. The lanes don't begin until beyond there. But it will bring that point where the road opens up a little bit further south, so it might help a little north of Fredericksburg. Hopefully enough traffic will actually use the lanes to pull enough traffic out of the mainline lanes to give some congestion relief. But don't count on it!
In my experiences going to DC for Nationals games the traffic always lets up northbound when the HOV lanes begin so moving the start of the HOV/HOT lanes south should most definitely provide some relief farther south.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 15, 2012, 07:51:56 PM
Anyone have a picture of the E-ZPass Flex transponders. Curious if they are based on the newer/smaller Mark IV transponders currently in use for SC's Palmetto Pass or if its the older design all the E-ZPass agencies are required to use.
The 495 Express Lanes site (http://www.495expresslanes.com/#) has images of both the standard E-ZPass and the Flex. The Flex is smaller and wider:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.495expresslanes.com%2Fimages%2Ftab-get-your-ezpass-transponders.png&hash=73e39ae8b2b53d9b0cbc13115239d755965bae4e)
The Virginia E-ZPass site shows a smaller standard transponder on their main page in the ad for "E-ZPass on the Go," where you buy a transponder at a retail store and activate it later (similar to how Florida sells the SunPass at Publix grocery stores). I've never seen one that looks like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezpassva.com%2Fimages%2FEZPass-OnTheGoKit.jpg&hash=8d5020b13c927fd13542be66691327bb1df73871)
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 15, 2012, 10:59:12 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
Weekends, going north: like described above, the Rappahannock is the big bottleneck. The lanes don't begin until beyond there. But it will bring that point where the road opens up a little bit further south, so it might help a little north of Fredericksburg. Hopefully enough traffic will actually use the lanes to pull enough traffic out of the mainline lanes to give some congestion relief. But don't count on it!
In my experiences going to DC for Nationals games the traffic always lets up northbound when the HOV lanes so moving the start of the HOV/HOT lanes south should most definitely provide some relief farther south.
Currently, anyone who wants to use those lanes can. Under the HOT lane scenario, the number of people peeling off into the HOT lanes will be artificially constrained by tolls, so there might be less traffic exiting and more in the mainline lanes.
I was driving on I-395 this afternoon and I found myself pondering how the tolling might work and I ultimately concluded that for someone who lives where I do (Kingstowne) there may be a fair reason to consider paying the tolls from time to time because of how access from here to I-95 works. It's a bit of a pain–to get to the general-purpose lanes I either go up to the Beltway, then move across to take the flyover ramp to I-95 South, or else I go across Franconia Road and then through the red lights (they are always red!!!!) in Springfield near Robert E. Lee High School because the Franconia Road flyover lanes do not allow access to the Interstate, or I go south to Newington or Lorton.
For the HOV lanes, in contrast, if they're going in the direction I want, I can just make three right turns out of my neighborhood and soon I'm on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway and I hop into the lanes there.
For travel to and from the south (Woodbridge, Richmond, etc.), I can see myself paying the toll fairly regularly to use the Express Lanes between the Lorton slip ramp (really located closer to Newington, but the southbound exit sign says Lorton because that's the next exit) and the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, or the reverse maneuver. The distance is minimal and the time savings compared to going up to the Beltway, fighting across three lanes to exit at Van Dorn, then driving back the other way (or doing all this in reverse), makes the toll worth it unless the traffic in the general-purpose lanes is so extraordinarily bad that the toll is sky-high–but in that case you'd hear it on the radio and go a different way.
Similarly, the distance between the Turkeycock ramps and the Beltway is so minimal, and traffic on I-395 there usually flows freely enough, that it's fair to expect the toll between those two points to be quite low. I can certainly see how during the non-HOV hours (for the portion north of Turkeycock)–say, coming back from a game in DC–the toll might be so minimal to make it not worth exiting at Turkeycock and then exiting onto the Beltway.
........Which is all a very long way of using personal circumstances to say that I think the dynamic of Express Lane usage on I-95 might prove to be very different from the way it works on the Beltway precisely because of the "segment-based" tolling system I mentioned earlier. I would not be surprised if you see people paying the toll on the section further south in the morning but then bailing back into the mainline further north as the toll for the northern segments increases. It might make for a very interesting sort of traffic flow based on where people move back and forth and I think it's very likely that your average toll-payer would not normally be willing to pay the toll to use the entire length of the HO/T facility. It's going to take time for people to figure out how best to make the system work for them and it's going to be a serious mental adjustment to think of the reversible carriageway in terms of "segments."
The Franconia—Springfield Parkway is a special situation because it doesn't have direct access from the general-purpose lanes and you have to twist around through Springfield if you use Exit 169. As I suggest above, that exit is one that seems prime for paying the toll, especially because the new Beltway-to-HOV connections will for the first time allow somewhat direct all-highway access between the Parkway and the Beltway. I don't doubt that during the next two years when there is no toll to use those ramps some people will get addicted to that route. It ought to be a GREAT shortcut. I know a fellow who has Redskins season tickets who comes up the Franconia—Springfield Parkway and then uses Frontier Drive to Franconia Road to the ramp to I-95 North, or else heads east to Van Dorn and up to the Beltway. His trip to the games suddenly gets a whole lot easier when that ramp opens (though the trip home won't change). Get addicted to that over two years and the idea of paying 50¢ or a dollar to avoid all the red lights in Springfield becomes very palatable.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
So we're getting really close to the opening of the I-495 HOT Lanes, and we just broke ground on the I-95 HOT Lanes. Here are some of my thoughts about how useful these will actually be...
I-495:
I think these will work relatively well for people staying in Virginia. Some extra capacity was badly needed between Springfield and Tysons Corner. I think a significant benefit will come just to those who use the Tysons Corner interchanges. Today, it can take 15+ minutes just to drive the length of the entrance/exit ramps during peak times, and having "artificially" uncongested interchanges (due to tolls/occupancy requirements) on the HOT lanes will be a huge benefit to those who choose to use the lanes. I see some minor operational issues at the south end, just because you have so many lanes converging and diverging there, and during rush hours for the first couple years, toll payers will have to exit into the regular lanes to get to I-95 south, as the I-95 reversible lanes will be HOV-3 only. I see some bigger problems at the northern end, northbound, during PM peak hours. According to Dr. Gridlock in the Washington Post, the operators of the lanes don't expect much traffic to use them north of Tysons Corner. I don't believe that. There are plenty of people who will gladly pay to use the lanes between Tysons and the north end to avoid the interchange delays that I mentioned above. To them, its a sweet deal, because the toll will be relatively cheap since they will only be in the lanes for a short time before they end. I predict there will be some congestion in the HOT lanes approaching the merge point. But like the I-95 HOV merge in Dumfries, the higher density of traffic in the regular lanes vs. the artificially constrained traffic in the HOT lanes (or starved traffic in the HOV lanes in the case of I-95, since there are no entrances south of Springfield) means the line to reach the merge point will be longer in the regular lanes than in the HOT lanes. In otherwords, there will still be a jam leading to the American Legion Bridge, but HOT users will skip ahead in the line.
Agree with what you wrote above. However, the Inner Loop (northbound) merge from the HOT lanes to the regular lanes will take place well before the Va. 193 (Georgetown Pike), and what has long been bad in terms of congestion will (in my opinion) only get worse, and likely much worse.
The blame for this state of affairs lies on the Maryland side of the Potomac River, in particular with the Montgomery County Council, which has (for decades) clung to the notion that its Metro lines to D.C., combined with an unhealthy obsession with transit and misguided densification of neighborhoods without political clout, will solve transportation problems.
Those policies haven't worked (even though those policies have mostly been followed since 1970) and they
won't work now.
Similarly, the ideas that have been floated in the news media, such as reviving the failed WMATA bus service between Montgomery County and Tysons Corner (cancelled in 2003 by order of then-Maryland Secretary of Transportation Bob Flanagan because all of its operating subsidies were from the Maryland Department of Transportation, none from any jurisdiction in Virginia and it was losing more money per passenger than any other transit bus route in the state) and re-striping the Capital Beltway to add an extra (narrow) lane are not going to work (and I suspect that FHWA and Maryland SHA are not about to permit re-striping anyway for safety reasons).
What is needed is to extend the HOT lanes north from their current terminus, across the Potomac River, past the Md. 190 (River Road) interchange to the I-270Y (I-270 Spur) Exit 38 partial interchange.
The holiest of holy documents in Montgomery County, the master plans, actually were amended way back in 2003 to add HOV lanes from the Virginia end of the American Legion Bridge to I-270Y, but the county's over-involved civic activist industry routinely lobbies the County Council to oppose any and all highway improvements (that's why it took over 50 years to get Md. 200 built). At least some of the civic activists have claimed that the unbuilt and unfunded Purple Line light rail should be extended west from its planned terminus in Bethesda to Tysons Corner, but it would have to run through some very wealthy (and very much opposed to everything) neighborhoods in Montgomery County and Fairfax County, so that's an alternative offered with the intention of making sure that nothing gets done.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
I think that, in general, the lanes will be underutilized on weekends. There is just not much traffic on that portion of the Beltway on weekends, you just have local traffic which will use the regular lanes for free. Long distance traffic will be on the east side of the Beltway.
I respectfully disagree. I think there will be plenty of demand on weekends, especially in the afternoons.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
I-95:
A little bit of benefit for rush hour commuters (especially afternoon commuters), little to no benefit for weekend drivers. Let me start by saying that there is a huge elephant in the room that has not really been addressed...that is that weekend traffic on I-95 is very different from weekday commute traffic, and although everyone will acknowledge that weekends on I-95 are awful, no one has yet to come out and admit that this project will do little to change that. So lets start with weekdays. Here we have traffic that is very directional (north in the AM, south in the PM), and is focused from the southern suburbs into DC via I-395. The reversible lane facility serves this traffic well.
I think you have nailed it pretty well above with regards to I-95. My only gripe is that the HOT lanes should be extended
much further south, to beyond Va. 3 (Exit 130) in the City of Fredericksburg and probably beyond U.S. 1/U.S. 17 (Exit 126) in Spotsylvania County.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
In the afternoon, you'll have HOV-3 traffic from Pentagon/DC joined by some single occupant /HOV-2 vehicles from the mainline of I-395. You'll take on a bunch of traffic from the I-495 HOT lanes coming from Tysons. You'll have an extra lane as far as Prince William Parkway...which is something more than you have now. As you pass each interchange, enough commuters will exit the mainline and HOT lanes, such that the merge point at Garrisonville Road won't be too bad, at least not as bad as the merge point is in Dumfries today. Think about it, many of those HOT lane users going to Stafford County will not have to enter the regular lanes, whereas they do now. But the key thing is that as you head south, people get off to go to their homes, leaving more room in the regular lanes/less traffic in the HOT lanes to get to the new merge point.
Though as I suggested yesterday to
Beltway, don't forget the massive number of people working in new (to the area) jobs at Fort Belvoir and Marine Corps Base Quantico thanks to BRAC. They will load even more trips onto I-95 (and most of them are not using transit).
A merge point at Va. 610 (Garrisonville Road) Exit 143 is clearly better than the current one at Va. 234 (Dumfries Road) Exit 152, but I still assert that this is not far enough, and the congestion for traffic continuing further south will continue to be brutal in the afternoons.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
Northbound, in the morning, I think the lanes will work okay up to but not including the end of the HOT lanes at Edsal Road. You're going to have more lanes feeding a chokepoint. The mainline lanes of I-395 will be very congested approaching this merge point. HOT lane users will get to the front of the line, but will still ultimately have to merge. We can only hope that enough of the tollpayers are going to Tysons and not up I-395, that is what will keep the merge from becomming awful. Perhaps the lane operators could make the toll for the segment between the Beltway and Edsal Road very high, thereby encouraging Tysons commuters but discouraging DC commuters from using the lanes, or at the least, getting DC commuters out of the lanes a little earlier than at the very very end. Also, the operators should play up the fact that anyone with HOV-2 has another option...rather than merge onto I-395, they could continue paying tolls and use the I-495 lanes, and then take I-66 inbound to Arlington and DC (would really only work well for the west side of DC and Arlington, would be too out of the way for Capitol Hill).
Agreed. I have not seen the plans for adding a new ramp from the reversible HOV roadway to the conventional lanes of I-395 at Turkeycock Run (just north of Edsall Road (Va. 648) Exit 2, but things are normally very congested there now in the three non-HOV lanes from Va. 648 to Duke Street (Va. 236) Exit 3.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
Weekends, going south: Not going to do a darn bit of good. Remember that on weekdays, as you travel south, people get off at the interchanges, freeing up space in the mainline lanes and reducing the volume in the HOT lanes. Weekends, not so much. On weekends, a much greater percentage of traffic is in it for the long haul to Richmond and beyond, for everyone who takes a local exit, there's a local person going to the beach who gets on in their place. So all you are doing is moving the merge south about 8 miles. But since HOT lanes are artifically starved of traffic because of the tolls, HOT lane drivers will simply move to the front of the line, and regular lane drivers will sit in worse traffic than they do today. In order to have a big impact, these HOT lanes would need to be extended down to Fredericksburg. That is where the real weekend bottleneck is, at the Rappahannock. There you have I-95 traffic and people bypassing DC via US 17 merging, and then a lot of local traffic exiting at Route 3 and Massaponax, so the bridge is the chokepoint. If you extended the HOT lanes there, you'd increase the capacity of the bottleneck. Absent that, the bottleneck is still there.
Agreed and disagreed. Hopefully the operators of the concession will understand that lower tolls on the weekends will mean
more vehicles and thus
more revenue.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
Weekends, going north: like described above, the Rappahannock is the big bottleneck. The lanes don't begin until beyond there. But it will bring that point where the road opens up a little bit further south, so it might help a little north of Fredericksburg. Hopefully enough traffic will actually use the lanes to pull enough traffic out of the mainline lanes to give some congestion relief. But don't count on it!
Another issue that has not been directly discussed here is the
huge amount of commercial vehicle traffic that exits I-95 northbound to head north on U.S. 17 (Warrenton Road) Exit 133. Many trucks use the combination of U.S. 17/I-66/I-81 as a
de-
facto Western Bypass of the Capital Beltway. The truck volume exiting is sometimes so heavy that it disrupts northbound I-95 traffic! I've also seen it cause problems on the flipside, with southbound truck traffic from U.S. 17 entering southbound I-95.
At least there is a small nugget of justice in this, since that heavy truck traffic goes by Warrenton, which is where the oppose-all-highways-at-all-costs Piedmont Environmental Council has its headquarters (and apparently the PEC membership has complained about the truck traffic, and managed to get truck restrictions imposed on U.S. 15 between Gainesville and the bridge at Point-of-Rocks, Maryland; and on U.S. 17 between I-66 and U.S. 50 at Paris during the administration of Gov. Jim Gilmore (R)).
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
Some more points to consider with I-95's heavy weekend and holiday traffic.... If you're a commuter, on Friday afternoons you'll be competing with all of those vacationers for space in those HOT lanes. I'd expect that the price will be very very high on Fridays. If I'm taking my once-yearly trip to Virginia Beach, I won't mind paying a $50 toll to escape the frustration of the regular lanes as much as the commuters that won't be able to afford that on a regular basis. In otherwords, the vacationers will price-out the locals, since the vacationers only have to do it once. The other thought, which should be obvious....on some days, especially on summer weekends and around Thanksgiving...the traffic is bad in both directions. One direction will be helped by HOT lanes, but the other will be just as bad off as today with no help from additional lanes. I hope they at least keep the schedule similar to the way it is now, as right now the lanes are optimized for northern Virginians taking weekend trips out of the area on Friday/Saturday morning and coming back Saturday evening/Sunday, as well as leaving before a long holiday weekend and coming home at the end. Otherwise the lanes would be benefitting those from Richmond and North Carolina more than the locals.
Which is why the proposal from the early 1990's to upgrade the U.S. 301/Va. 207 corridor from Ruther Glen/Carmel Church in the south to Bowie in the north to a freeway made so much sense.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
In the meantime, prepare to suffer a lot during construction. As it is now, the lanes will be closed during weekday
overnights for roadwork including Friday night. So when the lanes open on Saturday morning, VDOT will have them pointed north (since the portion from Edsal Road to DC will be open north during the closures further south), meaning those escaping town on Saturday will not have the benefit of the lanes. I would easily forsee some complete weekend closures, which can really make a big mess of traffic.
As I also discussed with
Beltway,
that is when I will bail to U.S. 301 all the way from Maryland south to past Hanover Court House to I-295.
If headed to Virginia Beach (and presumably the Outer Banks), south on U.S. 301 to Port Royal, Va. to U.S. 17 south to Newport News is a winning way to avoid I-95 misery.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
I think that, in general, the lanes will be underutilized on weekends. There is just not much traffic on that portion of the Beltway on weekends, you just have local traffic which will use the regular lanes for free. Long distance traffic will be on the east side of the Beltway.
I respectfully disagree. I think there will be plenty of demand on weekends, especially in the afternoons.
I think it's fair to expect some of that will depend on the toll rate. I remember I used the I-95 HO/T lanes in Miami on a weekend last year precisely because the toll was so low (25¢ to go the length of the lanes). There was so much less traffic in there that 25¢ would have been more than worth it for the reduced traffic even if I hadn't had the roadgeeking reason for using those lanes. I anticipate the same would apply on the Beltway. No doubt some people would oppose paying even a low toll if the general-purpose lanes are flowing freely. Fine by me!!! I look at what I pay to cross the bridges in New York and I shrug at the idea of paying $1.00 on a Saturday to use the Express Lanes if I'm going far enough to use them.
I think the operators are going to have some work to do to figure out the point at which the weekend or late-night rate is low enough to encourage people to use the lanes but high enough to allow them to make money.
The other consideration is that there are a couple of Express Lane exits that don't exist from the general-purpose lanes; the one that most readily comes to my mind in terms of presenting some totally new access is the new US-29 northbound exit/southbound entrance. I could definitely see myself using that on a weekend if I were going to play golf at Jefferson District Park (two lights east of the Beltway)–presently I exit at US-50 and then go through Fairview Park, and that's easy enough, but if the toll rate were low enough I'd consider just using the Express Lanes. I think VDOT and Fluor/Transurban expect people to use the Express Lanes for exactly that purpose, and I think they further expect that some people on the Inner Loop might exit at Gallows Road and then re-enter into the Express Lanes via the new ramp now under construction, as I've noted that there is an overhead "E-ZPass Express" VMS on the Inner Loop exit ramp at Gallows. Why put that on an exit ramp unless you expect people to pop over into the Express Lanes?
There are some other new exits in Tysons as well, but I don't view them as presenting quite the same degree of "new access." Someone going to the mall might want to use the Westpark Bridge exit, but at the same time, the mall is pretty easy to access from Virginia. Coming from Maryland, paying the toll to take the Westpark Bridge might be a considerable advantage because if you exit the Outer Loop onto southbound 123, you can't access the left turn lane due to a barrier curb–you have to go to International Drive to access the mall or else loop around to the right via Tysons Boulevard and Westpark Drive. If you take the Express Lanes, you go directly to the bridge and to the parking garage outside where Woodies used to be. As for the other exit to Jones Branch Drive, I don't have a great sense of what that road serves other than that it's in the corporate park area, so I have no idea if it would have any value to the average driver on weekends.
Hmmm.....you know, the point about access to the mall prompts me to think of the interesting question of whether the Express Lanes would be useful for Christmas shoppers given what a mess Tysons can be at that time of year. Back in the late 1990s I worked in McLean but lived near Fairfax City and my commute home was 123 to the Beltway to 236. But at Christmastime it could take 45 minutes to go from Lewinsville Road to the Beltway, so I started getting on the Toll Road west, paying the (then) 25¢ to exit at Spring Hill, then getting back on the other way and paying another 25¢, then getting on the Beltway. I haven't been to Tysons at Christmas in a couple of years but I'm sure it's only gotten worse. It'll be interesting to see how that sort of thing affects the Express Lanes' operation (and, by extension, the toll rates).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
Northbound, in the morning, I think the lanes will work okay up to but not including the end of the HOT lanes at Edsal Road. You're going to have more lanes feeding a chokepoint. The mainline lanes of I-395 will be very congested approaching this merge point. HOT lane users will get to the front of the line, but will still ultimately have to merge. We can only hope that enough of the tollpayers are going to Tysons and not up I-395, that is what will keep the merge from becomming awful. Perhaps the lane operators could make the toll for the segment between the Beltway and Edsal Road very high, thereby encouraging Tysons commuters but discouraging DC commuters from using the lanes, or at the least, getting DC commuters out of the lanes a little earlier than at the very very end. Also, the operators should play up the fact that anyone with HOV-2 has another option...rather than merge onto I-395, they could continue paying tolls and use the I-495 lanes, and then take I-66 inbound to Arlington and DC (would really only work well for the west side of DC and Arlington, would be too out of the way for Capitol Hill).
Agreed. I have not seen the plans for adding a new ramp from the reversible HOV roadway to the conventional lanes of I-395 at Turkeycock Run (just north of Edsall Road (Va. 648) Exit 2, but things are normally very congested there now in the three non-HOV lanes from Va. 648 to Duke Street (Va. 236) Exit 3.
It's not super-specific, but a diagram of that plan is available at the following address: http://www.vahotlanes.com/documents/D38683PH_13.pdf The source for that info, as well as similar maps of the rest of the project, may be found here (http://www.vahotlanes.com/i95/project-info/access.php) (link shortened to a single word so that it's not stacked right under the other one). I found the map of "Fairfax County Parkway Area" (Newington) to be interesting because there is to be a new Express Lanes exit/entrance there, connecting to Alban Road/Boudinot Drive. Boudinot in turn connects directly to both directions of the Parkway.
What concerns me about the proposed Turkeycock ramp is that it poses a potential weaving problem as traffic exiting the Express Lanes and continuing on I-395 has to move left just as traffic coming up the general-purpose lanes and exiting onto Duke Street towards Landmark Mall and Alexandria proper has to move right. Weaving movements in a lane of traffic always gum things up, and a prime example of that is right across on the other side of I-395 where the cloverleaf loop-around ramps use the right thru lane as their weave area. I-395
always slows down through there. For me that's one major reason why I try to use the express lanes when they're open to all traffic going south. As to the new ramp, I rather doubt there's enough room to build a barrier-separated C/D lane there due to the limited right-of-way coupled with some very expensive townhouses (Landmark Mews–those are really expensive townhouses) just to the southeast of the right-of-way. (If you look at the bottom of the map you see the words "City of Alexandria." The word "City" is superimposed on the building where my wife lived before we got married, so I am very familiar with that little area.)
Separate issue not raised yet: One of the things I found myself wondering is about the specific issue of the center carriageway being reversible. At what point does extending a reversible carriageway ever further out (south, in this case) begin to introduce operational problems? I've seen some comments about the reversible facility that suggest that VDOT could do a better job of reversing them if they'd use cameras and automate the process instead of insisting on having trucks driving the length of the thing opening and closing the gates. On the other hand, I also understand why VDOT is absolutely paranoid about the risk of a head-on collision between vehicles with a closing speed of 130 mph or more (65 mph x 2) and why they are therefore overly cautious. I can't really blame them. Also, cameras do malfunction, and bad weather sometimes reduces cameras' usefulness, especially given the predilection of Northern Virginia drivers to drive illegally without headlights in the rain and snow. So I think it's fair to presume that VDOT will continue to impose very strict regulations as to the process of reversing the lanes, even if Fluor and Transurban take over the responsibility of managing the reversal in the HO/T portion. All of which builds up to the point–at what point does extending the reversible lanes potentially reduce the lanes' useful hours of operation if the process of reversing the direction winds up taking longer?
(edited to fix busted quote)
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
I think that, in general, the lanes will be underutilized on weekends. There is just not much traffic on that portion of the Beltway on weekends, you just have local traffic which will use the regular lanes for free. Long distance traffic will be on the east side of the Beltway.
I respectfully disagree. I think there will be plenty of demand on weekends, especially in the afternoons.
I think it's fair to expect some of that will depend on the toll rate. I remember I used the I-95 HO/T lanes in Miami on a weekend last year precisely because the toll was so low (25¢ to go the length of the lanes). There was so much less traffic in there that 25¢ would have been more than worth it for the reduced traffic even if I hadn't had the roadgeeking reason for using those lanes. I anticipate the same would apply on the Beltway. No doubt some people would oppose paying even a low toll if the general-purpose lanes are flowing freely. Fine by me!!! I look at what I pay to cross the bridges in New York and I shrug at the idea of paying $1.00 on a Saturday to use the Express Lanes if I'm going far enough to use them.
It should be relatively simple to come up with a price that is low enough to attract traffic while being high enough to keep traffic at free-flow speed (probably level-of-service D). Might take some time to get it stable, but I don't think it is especially hard.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
I think the operators are going to have some work to do to figure out the point at which the weekend or late-night rate is low enough to encourage people to use the lanes but high enough to allow them to make money.
They will not earn huge sums of money then, but pricing them low enough to entice a few motorists in is better than them being entirely empty.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
The other consideration is that there are a couple of Express Lane exits that don't exist from the general-purpose lanes; the one that most readily comes to my mind in terms of presenting some totally new access is the new US-29 northbound exit/southbound entrance. I could definitely see myself using that on a weekend if I were going to play golf at Jefferson District Park (two lights east of the Beltway)–presently I exit at US-50 and then go through Fairview Park, and that's easy enough, but if the toll rate were low enough I'd consider just using the Express Lanes. I think VDOT and Fluor/Transurban expect people to use the Express Lanes for exactly that purpose, and I think they further expect that some people on the Inner Loop might exit at Gallows Road and then re-enter into the Express Lanes via the new ramp now under construction, as I've noted that there is an overhead "E-ZPass Express" VMS on the Inner Loop exit ramp at Gallows. Why put that on an exit ramp unless you expect people to pop over into the Express Lanes?
There was never an exit at U.S. 29 (Lee Highway) before because it crossed too close to U.S. 50 and the I-66 interchanges.
This exit may also attract some traffic to the new Defense Department offices (that oversee TRICARE) in the old Melpar complex on U.S. 50, since there is a "back" entrance via Fairview Park North.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
There are some other new exits in Tysons as well, but I don't view them as presenting quite the same degree of "new access." Someone going to the mall might want to use the Westpark Bridge exit, but at the same time, the mall is pretty easy to access from Virginia. Coming from Maryland, paying the toll to take the Westpark Bridge might be a considerable advantage because if you exit the Outer Loop onto southbound 123, you can't access the left turn lane due to a barrier curb–you have to go to International Drive to access the mall or else loop around to the right via Tysons Boulevard and Westpark Drive. If you take the Express Lanes, you go directly to the bridge and to the parking garage outside where Woodies used to be. As for the other exit to Jones Branch Drive, I don't have a great sense of what that road serves other than that it's in the corporate park area, so I have no idea if it would have any value to the average driver on weekends.
Those ramps were not in the original proposal from the prospective (at the time) concessionaire group, but were added in part at the insistence of VDOT staff, who understood that without those ramps, the traffic on the Beltway mainline would get much, much worse. Nobody gives VDOT any credit for this (and at least one of the engineers, a personal friend of mine, was rewarded for his efforts by getting laid-off in the huge cutback of staff that took place when Virginia's motor fuel tax revenue crashed in about 2008).
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
Hmmm.....you know, the point about access to the mall prompts me to think of the interesting question of whether the Express Lanes would be useful for Christmas shoppers given what a mess Tysons can be at that time of year. Back in the late 1990s I worked in McLean but lived near Fairfax City and my commute home was 123 to the Beltway to 236. But at Christmastime it could take 45 minutes to go from Lewinsville Road to the Beltway, so I started getting on the Toll Road west, paying the (then) 25¢ to exit at Spring Hill, then getting back on the other way and paying another 25¢, then getting on the Beltway. I haven't been to Tysons at Christmas in a couple of years but I'm sure it's only gotten worse. It'll be interesting to see how that sort of thing affects the Express Lanes' operation (and, by extension, the toll rates).
That's going to be very interesting to observe.
[
Will continue in separate message]
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
Northbound, in the morning, I think the lanes will work okay up to but not including the end of the HOT lanes at Edsal Road. You're going to have more lanes feeding a chokepoint. The mainline lanes of I-395 will be very congested approaching this merge point. HOT lane users will get to the front of the line, but will still ultimately have to merge. We can only hope that enough of the tollpayers are going to Tysons and not up I-395, that is what will keep the merge from becomming awful. Perhaps the lane operators could make the toll for the segment between the Beltway and Edsal Road very high, thereby encouraging Tysons commuters but discouraging DC commuters from using the lanes, or at the least, getting DC commuters out of the lanes a little earlier than at the very very end. Also, the operators should play up the fact that anyone with HOV-2 has another option...rather than merge onto I-395, they could continue paying tolls and use the I-495 lanes, and then take I-66 inbound to Arlington and DC (would really only work well for the west side of DC and Arlington, would be too out of the way for Capitol Hill).
Agreed. I have not seen the plans for adding a new ramp from the reversible HOV roadway to the conventional lanes of I-395 at Turkeycock Run (just north of Edsall Road (Va. 648) Exit 2, but things are normally very congested there now in the three non-HOV lanes from Va. 648 to Duke Street (Va. 236) Exit 3.
It's not super-specific, but a diagram of that plan is available at the following address: http://www.vahotlanes.com/documents/D38683PH_13.pdf The source for that info, as well as similar maps of the rest of the project, may be found here (http://www.vahotlanes.com/i95/project-info/access.php) (link shortened to a single word so that it's not stacked right under the other one). I found the map of "Fairfax County Parkway Area" (Newington) to be interesting because there is to be a new Express Lanes exit/entrance there, connecting to Alban Road/Boudinot Drive. Boudinot in turn connects directly to both directions of the Parkway.
There is also a new ramp coming out of the Fort Belvoir North Area that will provide access to the reversible roadway. I think it is under construction
now.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
What concerns me about the proposed Turkeycock ramp is that it poses a potential weaving problem as traffic exiting the Express Lanes and continuing on I-395 has to move left just as traffic coming up the general-purpose lanes and exiting onto Duke Street towards Landmark Mall and Alexandria proper has to move right. Weaving movements in a lane of traffic always gum things up, and a prime example of that is right across on the other side of I-395 where the cloverleaf loop-around ramps use the right thru lane as their weave area. I-395 always slows down through there. For me that's one major reason why I try to use the express lanes when they're open to all traffic going south. As to the new ramp, I rather doubt there's enough room to build a barrier-separated C/D lane there due to the limited right-of-way coupled with some very expensive townhouses (Landmark Mews–those are really expensive townhouses) just to the southeast of the right-of-way. (If you look at the bottom of the map you see the words "City of Alexandria." The word "City" is superimposed on the building where my wife lived before we got married, so I am very familiar with that little area.)
I know exactly what you are talking about. If I lived in those townhomes, I would be very angry about that ramp, even though it has long been needed. In a perfect world (without Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1967) that ramp could go exit from the HOV lanes and then go over the northbound I-395 conventional lanes and then around, cloverleaf-style, to I-395 northbound. But thanks in large part to 4(f) as well as the Clean Water Act (since such a ramp would probably have some impact on Turkeycock Run, part of the Waters of the United States, meaning that a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would also be needed), it is better for a highway to impact a community like Landmark Mews than it is to impact a little-used stream valley park.
I know a lot about Sections 404 and 4(f) from Maryland's InterCounty Connector wars (from the 1970's to about 2006), when anti-ICC activists met (I am convinced) in secret (rather like meeting
ex-
parte with a judge) with staff from USEPA Region III and the Army Corps, Baltimore Engineering District, to develop strategies for stopping the project with those (and other) federal laws and statutes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
Separate issue not raised yet: One of the things I found myself wondering is about the specific issue of the center carriageway being reversible. At what point does extending a reversible carriageway ever further out (south, in this case) begin to introduce operational problems? I've seen some comments about the reversible facility that suggest that VDOT could do a better job of reversing them if they'd use cameras and automate the process instead of insisting on having trucks driving the length of the thing opening and closing the gates. On the other hand, I also understand why VDOT is absolutely paranoid about the risk of a head-on collision between vehicles with a closing speed of 130 mph or more (65 mph x 2) and why they are therefore overly cautious. I can't really blame them. Also, cameras do malfunction, and bad weather sometimes reduces cameras' usefulness, especially given the predilection of Northern Virginia drivers to drive illegally without headlights in the rain and snow. So I think it's fair to presume that VDOT will continue to impose very strict regulations as to the process of reversing the lanes, even if Fluor and Transurban take over the responsibility of managing the reversal in the HO/T portion. All of which builds up to the point–at what point does extending the reversible lanes potentially reduce the lanes' useful hours of operation if the process of reversing the direction winds up taking longer?
(edited to fix busted quote)
It was discussed years ago when the reversible lanes were extended south from Springfield (just south of Va. 644) to Lorton and then to Dumfries in the 1990's.
In my opinion, VDOT has well-developed and safe procedures to be followed when reversing the lanes which have worked out well. It used to be VDOT peopple that reversed the lanes, now days I think the maintenance contractor that has the contract for the adjacent sections of I-95 and I-395 does it.
Even if the reversible lanes were to be extended all the way to Massaponax in Spotsylvania County, I think they can be managed,
and managed well.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2012, 11:58:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
The other consideration is that there are a couple of Express Lane exits that don't exist from the general-purpose lanes; the one that most readily comes to my mind in terms of presenting some totally new access is the new US-29 northbound exit/southbound entrance. I could definitely see myself using that on a weekend if I were going to play golf at Jefferson District Park (two lights east of the Beltway)–presently I exit at US-50 and then go through Fairview Park, and that's easy enough, but if the toll rate were low enough I'd consider just using the Express Lanes. I think VDOT and Fluor/Transurban expect people to use the Express Lanes for exactly that purpose, and I think they further expect that some people on the Inner Loop might exit at Gallows Road and then re-enter into the Express Lanes via the new ramp now under construction, as I've noted that there is an overhead "E-ZPass Express" VMS on the Inner Loop exit ramp at Gallows. Why put that on an exit ramp unless you expect people to pop over into the Express Lanes?
There was never an exit at U.S. 29 (Lee Highway) before because it crossed too close to U.S. 50 and the I-66 interchanges.
This exit may also attract some traffic to the new Defense Department offices (that oversee TRICARE) in the old Melpar complex on U.S. 50, since there is a "back" entrance via Fairview Park North.
Yes, I know, hence my point about it being a completely new exit that has the potential to change traffic patterns in a way that's hard to anticipate concretely until the system is actually operational. Depending on your destination, that new Express Lanes exit could be a huge timesaver compared to using Gallows Road, in particular. Gallows often backs up in front of the McDonald's across from Luther Jackson where there's a lane drop. The maneuver I suggested where you exit at Gallows and then hop into the Express Lanes seems highly plausible because I see many people making a similar move in reverse on I-395 at Seminary–I've seen people using the HOV in the afternoon exit at Seminary and then hop back into the mainline to exit at Duke.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2012, 12:16:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
Separate issue not raised yet: One of the things I found myself wondering is about the specific issue of the center carriageway being reversible. At what point does extending a reversible carriageway ever further out (south, in this case) begin to introduce operational problems? I've seen some comments about the reversible facility that suggest that VDOT could do a better job of reversing them if they'd use cameras and automate the process instead of insisting on having trucks driving the length of the thing opening and closing the gates. On the other hand, I also understand why VDOT is absolutely paranoid about the risk of a head-on collision between vehicles with a closing speed of 130 mph or more (65 mph x 2) and why they are therefore overly cautious. I can't really blame them. Also, cameras do malfunction, and bad weather sometimes reduces cameras' usefulness, especially given the predilection of Northern Virginia drivers to drive illegally without headlights in the rain and snow. So I think it's fair to presume that VDOT will continue to impose very strict regulations as to the process of reversing the lanes, even if Fluor and Transurban take over the responsibility of managing the reversal in the HO/T portion. All of which builds up to the point–at what point does extending the reversible lanes potentially reduce the lanes' useful hours of operation if the process of reversing the direction winds up taking longer?
(edited to fix busted quote)
It was discussed years ago when the reversible lanes were extended south from Springfield (just south of Va. 644) to Lorton and then to Dumfries in the 1990's.
In my opinion, VDOT has well-developed and safe procedures to be followed when reversing the lanes which have worked out well. It used to be VDOT peopple that reversed the lanes, now days I think the maintenance contractor that has the contract for the adjacent sections of I-95 and I-395 does it.
Even if the reversible lanes were to be extended all the way to Massaponax in Spotsylvania County, I think they can be managed, and managed well.
Yeah, no disagreement with any of your comments about how they've developed procedures that work very well. My comment was simply a practical one that I think is still a legitimate comment–at what point do you start to encounter difficulty due to the ever-increased length of the reversible roadway? I'm sure that probably happens at some point, but I have no idea of what that point might be. As a purely hypothetical example, surely if there were to be talk of adding HO/T or other managed lanes all the way down to Richmond at some point it would become more reasonable to do something like what Maryland is doing northeast of Baltimore with two separate managed carriageways. I don't necessarily mean making them ETLs like Maryland is, mind you–just that beyond a certain distance it seems like the lanes would be more effectively, uh, managed if the need to reverse them weren't present.
The proposed Massaponax terminal for the reversible roadway is logical, because any directional split south of there wouldn't typically occur at times that are oriented toward D.C. area weekday peak commuting hours.
The VA I-95 general purpose roadways should be a minimum of 4 lanes each way between I-295 and I-495.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 01:32:50 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2012, 12:16:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
Separate issue not raised yet: One of the things I found myself wondering is about the specific issue of the center carriageway being reversible. At what point does extending a reversible carriageway ever further out (south, in this case) begin to introduce operational problems? I've seen some comments about the reversible facility that suggest that VDOT could do a better job of reversing them if they'd use cameras and automate the process instead of insisting on having trucks driving the length of the thing opening and closing the gates. On the other hand, I also understand why VDOT is absolutely paranoid about the risk of a head-on collision between vehicles with a closing speed of 130 mph or more (65 mph x 2) and why they are therefore overly cautious. I can't really blame them. Also, cameras do malfunction, and bad weather sometimes reduces cameras' usefulness, especially given the predilection of Northern Virginia drivers to drive illegally without headlights in the rain and snow. So I think it's fair to presume that VDOT will continue to impose very strict regulations as to the process of reversing the lanes, even if Fluor and Transurban take over the responsibility of managing the reversal in the HO/T portion. All of which builds up to the pointat what point does extending the reversible lanes potentially reduce the lanes' useful hours of operation if the process of reversing the direction winds up taking longer?
(edited to fix busted quote)
It was discussed years ago when the reversible lanes were extended south from Springfield (just south of Va. 644) to Lorton and then to Dumfries in the 1990's.
In my opinion, VDOT has well-developed and safe procedures to be followed when reversing the lanes which have worked out well. It used to be VDOT peopple that reversed the lanes, now days I think the maintenance contractor that has the contract for the adjacent sections of I-95 and I-395 does it.
Even if the reversible lanes were to be extended all the way to Massaponax in Spotsylvania County, I think they can be managed, and managed well.
Yeah, no disagreement with any of your comments about how they've developed procedures that work very well. My comment was simply a practical one that I think is still a legitimate commentat what point do you start to encounter difficulty due to the ever-increased length of the reversible roadway? I'm sure that probably happens at some point, but I have no idea of what that point might be. As a purely hypothetical example, surely if there were to be talk of adding HO/T or other managed lanes all the way down to Richmond at some point it would become more reasonable to do something like what Maryland is doing northeast of Baltimore with two separate managed carriageways. I don't necessarily mean making them ETLs like Maryland is, mind youjust that beyond a certain distance it seems like the lanes would be more effectively, uh, managed if the need to reverse them weren't present.
I think they should definitely have a truck go through to ensure that the lanes are clear before opening them up in the opposite direction. You just cannot take a risk that an electronic device will fail when you have potential head-on crashes that could happen. Remember what happened in Pittsburgh...
I think they can improve the reversing procedure though, and I bet the private operators of the lanes will have strong financial incentives to do so, as any times the lanes sit idle means lost potential toll revenue. For example....the lanes are operating southbound. You start closing them at the Pentagon. The truck drives south from the Pentagon to Shirlington, and observes that the lanes are clear. Why not open the northbound entrance from Shirlington at that time, rather than wait until every southbound entrance is closed and the entire roadway is clear before opening any northbound entrances? In otherwords, during reversing times, you could have traffic operating in two different directions at the same time....so long as the traffic is going from the middle towards the ends, there is no need to worry about oncoming traffic. The truck would simply shut the southbound gates, ensure that the roadway is clear, and then open the northbound gates, then continue south, and so on and so forth.
In some cases, I could see them having the lanes operating in both directions on different segments. For example, I think it was in 2009, July 4th fell on a Saturday. This was a "getaway" day for a long weekend, with a lot of DC area residents heading south on I-95. VDOT had the HOV lanes opened northbound, presumably to accomodate the surge of traffic into DC for the fireworks. This created a massive traffic jam going south on I-95. This would be a perfect time to allow the lanes to be open from the Beltway to points south in the southbound direction (to accomodate the getaway traffic), and the lanes to be open from Turkeycock to DC in the northbound direction (to accomodate fireworks traffc). Then, not only do you serve everyone's needs early in the day, but later in the day, there's an awful lot less miles of lane that need to be reversed to accomodate those leaving the fireworks (since the lanes south of the Beltway are already pointed outbound).
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2012, 03:12:21 PM
The proposed Massaponax terminal for the reversible roadway is logical, because any directional split south of there wouldn't typically occur at times that are oriented toward D.C. area weekday peak commuting hours.
Though I have [
recently] seen single-family homes for sale in Caroline County, Va. that were
clearly being marketed to residents of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Not sure that this justifies a barrier-separated roadway south to (and beyond) Thornburg - but just putting that out there.
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2012, 03:12:21 PM
The VA I-95 general purpose roadways should be a minimum of 4 lanes each way between I-295 and I-495.
If VDOT can figure out how to pay for an additional lane on each side, it makes all the sense in the world to me.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 29, 2012, 04:58:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 01:32:50 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2012, 12:16:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
Separate issue not raised yet: One of the things I found myself wondering is about the specific issue of the center carriageway being reversible. At what point does extending a reversible carriageway ever further out (south, in this case) begin to introduce operational problems? I've seen some comments about the reversible facility that suggest that VDOT could do a better job of reversing them if they'd use cameras and automate the process instead of insisting on having trucks driving the length of the thing opening and closing the gates. On the other hand, I also understand why VDOT is absolutely paranoid about the risk of a head-on collision between vehicles with a closing speed of 130 mph or more (65 mph x 2) and why they are therefore overly cautious. I can't really blame them. Also, cameras do malfunction, and bad weather sometimes reduces cameras' usefulness, especially given the predilection of Northern Virginia drivers to drive illegally without headlights in the rain and snow. So I think it's fair to presume that VDOT will continue to impose very strict regulations as to the process of reversing the lanes, even if Fluor and Transurban take over the responsibility of managing the reversal in the HO/T portion. All of which builds up to the point–at what point does extending the reversible lanes potentially reduce the lanes' useful hours of operation if the process of reversing the direction winds up taking longer?
(edited to fix busted quote)
It was discussed years ago when the reversible lanes were extended south from Springfield (just south of Va. 644) to Lorton and then to Dumfries in the 1990's.
In my opinion, VDOT has well-developed and safe procedures to be followed when reversing the lanes which have worked out well. It used to be VDOT peopple that reversed the lanes, now days I think the maintenance contractor that has the contract for the adjacent sections of I-95 and I-395 does it.
Even if the reversible lanes were to be extended all the way to Massaponax in Spotsylvania County, I think they can be managed, and managed well.
Yeah, no disagreement with any of your comments about how they've developed procedures that work very well. My comment was simply a practical one that I think is still a legitimate comment–at what point do you start to encounter difficulty due to the ever-increased length of the reversible roadway? I'm sure that probably happens at some point, but I have no idea of what that point might be. As a purely hypothetical example, surely if there were to be talk of adding HO/T or other managed lanes all the way down to Richmond at some point it would become more reasonable to do something like what Maryland is doing northeast of Baltimore with two separate managed carriageways. I don't necessarily mean making them ETLs like Maryland is, mind you–just that beyond a certain distance it seems like the lanes would be more effectively, uh, managed if the need to reverse them weren't present.
I think they should definitely have a truck go through to ensure that the lanes are clear before opening them up in the opposite direction. You just cannot take a risk that an electronic device will fail when you have potential head-on crashes that could happen. Remember what happened in Pittsburgh...
I have only a vague memory of that, but from your words above, it sounds bad. Please describe in a little more detail. Is that the wreck that happened in 1985, killing 6 people (mentioned here (http://pittsburgh.pahighways.com/busways/nbusway.html))?
Quote from: mtantillo on August 29, 2012, 04:58:40 PM
I think they can improve the reversing procedure though, and I bet the private operators of the lanes will have strong financial incentives to do so, as any times the lanes sit idle means lost potential toll revenue. For example....the lanes are operating southbound. You start closing them at the Pentagon. The truck drives south from the Pentagon to Shirlington, and observes that the lanes are clear. Why not open the northbound entrance from Shirlington at that time, rather than wait until every southbound entrance is closed and the entire roadway is clear before opening any northbound entrances? In otherwords, during reversing times, you could have traffic operating in two different directions at the same time....so long as the traffic is going from the middle towards the ends, there is no need to worry about oncoming traffic. The truck would simply shut the southbound gates, ensure that the roadway is clear, and then open the northbound gates, then continue south, and so on and so forth.
But remember that the lanes north of Turkeycock Run will continue to be the (un-tolled) HOV-3 roadway, thanks in large part to Arlington County's opposition, so the operator of the priced lanes on I-95 will presumably have to cooperate closely with whatever contractor that VDOT has in charge of the reversing procedure on I-395.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 29, 2012, 04:58:40 PM
In some cases, I could see them having the lanes operating in both directions on different segments. For example, I think it was in 2009, July 4th fell on a Saturday. This was a "getaway" day for a long weekend, with a lot of DC area residents heading south on I-95. VDOT had the HOV lanes opened northbound, presumably to accomodate the surge of traffic into DC for the fireworks. This created a massive traffic jam going south on I-95. This would be a perfect time to allow the lanes to be open from the Beltway to points south in the southbound direction (to accomodate the getaway traffic), and the lanes to be open from Turkeycock to DC in the northbound direction (to accomodate fireworks traffc). Then, not only do you serve everyone's needs early in the day, but later in the day, there's an awful lot less miles of lane that need to be reversed to accomodate those leaving the fireworks (since the lanes south of the Beltway are already pointed outbound).
I have a vague memory of the lanes running in one direction from Newington to points south, and the opposite direction from Va. 644 (Franconia Road) to points in Arlington County and D.C. But such a configuration is
highly unusual, and I don't think VDOT likes to do that - for reasons of safety.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2012, 03:12:21 PM
The proposed Massaponax terminal for the reversible roadway is logical, because any directional split south of there wouldn't typically occur at times that are oriented toward D.C. area weekday peak commuting hours.
Though I have [recently] seen single-family homes for sale in Caroline County, Va. that were clearly being marketed to residents of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Not sure that this justifies a barrier-separated roadway south to (and beyond) Thornburg - but just putting that out there.
Not very many people would make a 70+ mile commute, not to where it would significantly impact a 6-lane Interstate. Plus, that is only about 35 miles from Richmond, which is a more reasonable commuting distance.
I would need to see a peak commuting hours traffic engineering analysis of I-95 south of Massaponax, before I could decide.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2012, 03:12:21 PM
The VA I-95 general purpose roadways should be a minimum of 4 lanes each way between I-295 and I-495.
If VDOT can figure out how to pay for an additional lane on each side, it makes all the sense in the world to me.
Maybe the proposed mainline tolls (not the HO/T tolls, the other toll proposal) could someday help with that. The toll revenue has to be dedicated solely to I-95.
If the tolls don't come to pass and they had to choose between a fourth lane for I-95 versus a third lane for I-81, I'd vote for I-81 every time if I had a say in the matter, even though I use I-95 more.
TOLLROADSnews: Capital Beltway toll lanes concessionaire offers 2-weeks toll-free for early sign-up, sets $12.50 penalties for no tag (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6171)
Quote495 Express Lanes is offering drivers who open a new E-ZPass transponder account this month (September) two weeks of toll-free travel on the 12 mile toll expressway in the middle of the Capital Beltway when it opens. There's still no official date for the opening but they are shooting for November-December.
QuoteAccording to surveys, the 495 Lanes people say, about half the people driving the Beltway already have E-ZPass accounts - for use you imagine on the nearby Dulles Toll Road and Dulles Greenway on the toll bridges and tunnels of the Baltimore area, Montgomery County's Inter County Connector or toll facilities further afield.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 29, 2012, 05:48:26 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2012, 03:12:21 PM
The VA I-95 general purpose roadways should be a minimum of 4 lanes each way between I-295 and I-495.
If VDOT can figure out how to pay for an additional lane on each side, it makes all the sense in the world to me.
Maybe the proposed mainline tolls (not the HO/T tolls, the other toll proposal) could someday help with that. The toll revenue has to be dedicated solely to I-95.
The Virginia elected and appointed officials that are on-record in favor of tolls on I-95 in the Commonwealth should state clearly that this is one of the things that the toll dollars will be spent on (after maintenance, which
must come first).
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 29, 2012, 05:48:26 PM
If the tolls don't come to pass and they had to choose between a fourth lane for I-95 versus a third lane for I-81, I'd vote for I-81 every time if I had a say in the matter, even though I use I-95 more.
I-81 across Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania cries out for tolling (of all traffic,
not just trucks) - all the way from Bristol, Va. to someplace in Pennsylvania (Hazleton, or Scranton perhaps?). The problem (at least in Pennsylvania) is how to prevent hourly transit workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (represented by some of the more militant unions in the nation) from asserting that they have a "right" to their "fair share" of the toll revenues. This is one of the reasons that Pennsylvania's proposal to toll its segment of I-80 was rejected by the federal government.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 09:27:56 AM
I-81 across Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania cries out for tolling (of all traffic, not just trucks) - all the way from Bristol, Va. to someplace in Pennsylvania (Hazleton, or Scranton perhaps?).
The collective voice of motorists cry against such tolling...
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 09:27:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 29, 2012, 05:48:26 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2012, 03:12:21 PM
The VA I-95 general purpose roadways should be a minimum of 4 lanes each way between I-295 and I-495.
If VDOT can figure out how to pay for an additional lane on each side, it makes all the sense in the world to me.
Maybe the proposed mainline tolls (not the HO/T tolls, the other toll proposal) could someday help with that. The toll revenue has to be dedicated solely to I-95.
The Virginia elected and appointed officials that are on-record in favor of tolls on I-95 in the Commonwealth should state clearly that this is one of the things that the toll dollars will be spent on (after maintenance, which must come first).
....
I think they need to do more than that. I'm not necessarily against tolling I-95 (or I-81). Nobody likes to pay more, of course, but I understand the potential benefit of doing it. The problem is that the politicians have done an utterly inadequate job of explaining it. Most people out there hear "toll" and they understandably object that we have a gas tax to pay for these things; they also less-understandably envision the backed-up toll plazas of the Northeast from the pre—E-ZPass days. The politicians haven't even tried to explain why an increase in the gas tax wouldn't solve the problem and why tolling I-95 would in theory provide a more stable and direct form of funding
for that road. Heck, a former colleague of mine who ran for state senate last year (he lost) wasn't familiar with all the reasoning behind the toll proposal until I gave him an eight-page briefing paper about it.
When I've explained to people I know that a gas tax increase would be subject to the same apportionment formula we have now, such that some part of it would have to go to, say, Big Stone Gap or Wise, and that only a very small percentage would be available for I-95, they begin to understand better. I don't know why VDOT and the politicians seem to have this aversion to giving the public a thorough explanation. Of course I also understand how the average person out there will ignore the information and will just squawk various emotional uninformed rants, same as we see now as to the HO/T projects. But if the full explanation is out there, it's their own fault if they fail to learn about it.
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2012, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 09:27:56 AM
I-81 across Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania cries out for tolling (of all traffic, not just trucks) - all the way from Bristol, Va. to someplace in Pennsylvania (Hazleton, or Scranton perhaps?).
The collective voice of motorists cry against such tolling...
But I think the truck-only tolling that was studied in Virginia's part of the I-81 corridor ultimately failed (in part) because it was
perceived as
unfair to the trucking industry, even though Virginia is one of the few states that imposes a higher Diesel fuel tax on heavier trucks, which must pay an additional 3.5¢ per gallon.
In a perfect world, trucks operating on toll roads and toll crossings would be able to log the miles on such facilities as "free" of motor fuel tax if they operate interstate and are required to file an IFTA tax return.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2012, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 09:27:56 AM
I-81 across Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania cries out for tolling (of all traffic, not just trucks) - all the way from Bristol, Va. to someplace in Pennsylvania (Hazleton, or Scranton perhaps?).
The collective voice of motorists cry against such tolling...
But I think the truck-only tolling that was studied in Virginia's part of the I-81 corridor ultimately failed (in part) because it was perceived as unfair to the trucking industry, even though Virginia is one of the few states that imposes a higher Diesel fuel tax on heavier trucks, which must pay an additional 3.5¢ per gallon.
They cried against it when it was revised to tolling all vehicles, and they are crying against it now that the TEA-21 pilot project has been transferred to VA I-95. They cry against it everywhere ... :-(
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2012, 02:01:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2012, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 09:27:56 AM
I-81 across Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania cries out for tolling (of all traffic, not just trucks) - all the way from Bristol, Va. to someplace in Pennsylvania (Hazleton, or Scranton perhaps?).
The collective voice of motorists cry against such tolling...
But I think the truck-only tolling that was studied in Virginia's part of the I-81 corridor ultimately failed (in part) because it was perceived as unfair to the trucking industry, even though Virginia is one of the few states that imposes a higher Diesel fuel tax on heavier trucks, which must pay an additional 3.5¢ per gallon.
They cried against it when it was revised to tolling all vehicles, and they are crying against it now that the TEA-21 pilot project has been transferred to VA I-95. They cry against it everywhere ... :-(
As I have told you in the past, I am indifferent as to how the maintenance and expansion of the highway system is funded.
But most states (including Virginia) will need to choose between [
higher] motor fuel taxes, tolls or perhaps a VMT tax (similar to the TollCollect.de (http://www.toll-collect.de/en/home.html) system used to collect tolls from heavy trucks on the German
autobahn network and certain other highways).
Quote from: Beltway on August 29, 2012, 05:28:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2012, 03:12:21 PM
The proposed Massaponax terminal for the reversible roadway is logical, because any directional split south of there wouldn't typically occur at times that are oriented toward D.C. area weekday peak commuting hours.
Though I have [recently] seen single-family homes for sale in Caroline County, Va. that were clearly being marketed to residents of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Not sure that this justifies a barrier-separated roadway south to (and beyond) Thornburg - but just putting that out there.
Not very many people would make a 70+ mile commute, not to where it would significantly impact a 6-lane Interstate.
Plenty of people commute from the Eastern Panhandle counties (Jefferson and Berkeley) of West Virginia to D.C. and places in its orbit, including Loudoun and Fairfax Counties in Virginia and Frederick and Montgomery Counties in Maryland. The Maryland Department of Transportation's MARC commuter rail system even provides service between Martinsburg, W.Va. and Washington Union Station (according to Google Maps, that's better than 80 miles by highway).
Real estate agents in those West Virginia counties routinely market properties to residents of jurisdictions closer to D.C. (and frequently tout how far it is from a property to the nearest MARC stop).
[
Full disclosure - I know Lon Anderson somewhat personally]
WTOP Radio: AAA renews debate on length of I-95 Express Lanes (http://www.wtop.com/654/3021754/AAA-renews-debate-on-length-of-I-95-Express-Lanes)
QuoteConstruction of the new Express Lanes on Interstate 95 in Northern Virginia has reopened the debate on why the project won't go all the way to the D.C. line.
QuoteOn WTOP, AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman Lon Anderson again pointed the finger at Arlington County for filing a lawsuit that led to a decision to shorten the Express Lanes.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 04:42:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 29, 2012, 05:28:10 PM
Not very many people would make a 70+ mile commute, not to where it would significantly impact a 6-lane Interstate.
Plenty of people commute from the Eastern Panhandle counties (Jefferson and Berkeley) of West Virginia to D.C. and places in its orbit, including Loudoun and Fairfax Counties in Virginia and Frederick and Montgomery Counties in Maryland. The Maryland Department of Transportation's MARC commuter rail system even provides service between Martinsburg, W.Va. and Washington Union Station (according to Google Maps, that's better than 80 miles by highway).
Real estate agents in those West Virginia counties routinely market properties to residents of jurisdictions closer to D.C. (and frequently tout how far it is from a property to the nearest MARC stop).
Still not enough to where a 2-lane freeway roadway has been provided over the whole distance, though. That reinforces my point.
Free trial on the I-495 Express Lanes for two weeks in January. There's a catch: you have to sign up for a Virginia E-ZPass in the month of September, register for the I-495 Express website, and be a legal resident of DC, Charles/PG/Montgomery/Frederick Counties (MD), or Arlington/Fairfax/Prince William/Loudoun Counties (VA).
Details here: http://495expresslanes.com/offer
If we can get enough locals signed up for this offer and/or people to get Flex transponders and pack 3 into a vehicle, I might consider hosting an informal meet on one of those two weekends to drive the lanes for free.
Washington Post: Fairfax board approves express buses to Tysons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/fairfax-board-approves-express-buses-to-tysons/2012/09/12/be34239e-fd0b-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_blog.html)
QuoteThe Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved a plan Tuesday to provide express bus service that will travel to Tysons Corner using the 495 Express Lanes.
Quote from: mtantillo on September 06, 2012, 01:30:54 PM
Free trial on the I-495 Express Lanes for two weeks in January. There's a catch: you have to sign up for a Virginia E-ZPass in the month of September, register for the I-495 Express website, and be a legal resident of DC, Charles/PG/Montgomery/Frederick Counties (MD), or Arlington/Fairfax/Prince William/Loudoun Counties (VA).
Details here: http://495expresslanes.com/offer
If we can get enough locals signed up for this offer and/or people to get Flex transponders and pack 3 into a vehicle, I might consider hosting an informal meet on one of those two weekends to drive the lanes for free.
I understand the rationale of restricting this to new E-ZPass subscribers, but it still kind of bugs me that those of us who have had the transponders for years don't get any kind of a break. It's sort of like how DirecTV constantly goes after new customers with promos like free NFL Sunday Ticket but doesn't offer anything comparable to people who have been long-time customers.
I will not be getting the Flex transponder since I almost never have three people in the car and I don't want to pay a fee when our two current transponders are still free. Perhaps when it comes time to replace them I might consider the Flex, but I doubt it.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 13, 2012, 10:25:07 AM
I will not be getting the Flex transponder since I almost never have three people in the car and I don't want to pay a fee when our two current transponders are still free. Perhaps when it comes time to replace them I might consider the Flex, but I doubt it.
Same here ... I live in the Richmond area, where there are no managed lanes, I'll probably benefit from NOVA HOT lanes maybe 3 or 4 times per year. No need for the Flex transponder.
WTOP Radio: Transportation secretary weighs in on Va. Express Lanes project (http://www.wtop.com/120/3041616/Transportation-secretary-weighs-in-on-Va-Express-Lanes-project)
Dr. Gridlock reported this weekend that one casualty of the I-95 HO/T project is to be the express lane exit marked "Lorton" that's located just south of the Fairfax County Parkway interchange in Newington. Traffic entering the reversible carriageway from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway will not be able to exit until the US-1 interchange near Woodbridge (Exit 161 from the general-purpose lanes) and won't be able to pop over to the general-purpose lanes via a slip ramp until the flyover near Potomac Mills Mall.
That puts a serious crimp in my theory about being willing to pay the toll southbound for the short distance from the Parkway to that ramp, as it is to be a permanent closure. There's to be a new HO/T exit at about that same place (connecting more or less to Boudinot Drive at Alban Road), so the closure is probably to make way for that construction.
WTOP Radio: Drivers urged to get E-ZPass before Express Lanes open (http://www.wtop.com/41/3081668/Drivers-urged-to-get-E-ZPass-before-Express-Lanes-open)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 17, 2012, 03:00:14 PM
WTOP Radio: Drivers urged to get E-ZPass before Express Lanes open (http://www.wtop.com/41/3081668/Drivers-urged-to-get-E-ZPass-before-Express-Lanes-open)
Dr. Gridlock had two blog entries about the new lanes today. The second one, titled Virginia express lanes operator prepares for opening (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2012/10/17/virginia-express-lanes-operator-prepares-for-opening/), contains the following sentence that I think in some ways constitutes the best, most succinct distillation I've heard of how the new lanes are to work:
Quote"We're opening a new Interstate highway inside an Interstate highway," Jennifer Aument, a Transurban vice president, said Wednesday during a briefing about the new lanes.
The idea of thinking of the Express Lanes as a separate road is a very useful way to think about how the lanes function because they have their own separate set of exits and entrances, rather than serving as an adjunct to the general-purpose lanes.
Examiner: Beltway Express Lanes to open before Thanksgiving (http://washingtonexaminer.com/beltway-express-lanes-to-open-before-thanksgiving/article/2512203)
QuoteDrivers could be using the Beltway Express lanes to cruise to Thanksgiving feasts.
QuoteThe 14 miles of special toll lanes will open early, as soon as Nov. 17, in plenty of time for Turkey Day travel, the Virginia Department of Transportation announced Wednesday.
The project's website confirms it is indeed Saturday the 17th. Interesting twist in having it open prior to the Thanksgiving travel crunch.
Once upon a time I might have considered trying to go out there at night to be the "first one to drive there," but since they've had test caravans going through for months that seems dumb. I may try to go for a drive on it that weekend, but I may not–Ms1995hoo and I are hosting Thanksgiving dinner this year and that weekend is a prime opportunity to get a lot of stuff done.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 31, 2012, 02:18:06 PM
The project's website confirms it is indeed Saturday the 17th. Interesting twist in having it open prior to the Thanksgiving travel crunch.
Once upon a time I might have considered trying to go out there at night to be the "first one to drive there," but since they've had test caravans going through for months that seems dumb. I may try to go for a drive on it that weekend, but I may not–Ms1995hoo and I are hosting Thanksgiving dinner this year and that weekend is a prime opportunity to get a lot of stuff done.
Interestingly, Maryland got the Contracts B and C section of the InterCounty Connector open just before Thanksgiving last year.
TOLLROADSnews: VA/495 Express Lanes to open November 17 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6259)
QuoteFor a bold project the announcement of its start-up sounded tentative, even timid. The 495 Express Lanes "will open as early as November 17," the first announcement from VDOT and the Express Lanes operator Transurban said.
QuoteThey were aiming for November 17, a Saturday start-up, but it just might be postponed, probably to the following weekend if complications arose in the meantime.
QuoteWhen pressed today however the Transurban people soon said November 17 was indeed a firm start date. And a couple of hours later the 495 Express Lanes (495XL) website discarded the wimpish "as soon as" saying simply the express lanes "will open" November 17.
Most of the tarps have been removed from BGSs in the express lanes as of this morning...
In other news, tree removal on the I-95 HOT lanes south of Dumfries is very far along...essentially no trees left north of Exit 148 with some grading work occurring.
Major progress on tree removal from Aquia Creek to the Telegraph Rd overpass has also occurred.
Mapmikey
I'll be interested in seeing how the new HOV ramps in the Springfield Interchange alter the traffic flow through there. Those are the part of this whole thing to which I've most been looking forward because I might use them regularly–or at least, I would have used them regularly if the NHL weren't in a lockout again (we have Capitals season tickets).
We're heading out to the mountains on Saturday, so perhaps we can snag some pictures of the nearly-completed lanes. There's an "E-ZPass Express" reassurance shield just north of the new Braddock Road HO/T ramp on the left side of the road and I've been unsuccessful in getting a picture of it (always too grainy due to distance). Doubt I can get that one, but I'm interested in finally seeing all the signs. I've seen some of them and so I have a pretty good sense of what the others look like, but to me one of the biggest questions about this project was always whether they would do an adequate job with the signs. We'll soon find out.
Dr. Gridlock put this image on Twitter. It's taken from the new Jones Branch Drive entrance to the Express Lanes looking south towards Tysons Corner Center (barely visible on the right below the "Shopping Bag Building"). I'm not sure what the other on-ramp to the left is, but I assume it probably comes from the Dulles Toll Road. I asked him about it and will edit this post if he replies.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A6ubu-_CIAAqpAk.jpg:large)
Took the Beltway to I-66 this morning on the way out and then took it from the Toll Road to Van Dorn on the way home. Best look yet at the new signs, although I didn't get any pictures (too dark on the way home, traffic on the way out). Most of the signs look pretty good. Ms1995hoo remarked that uncovering them two weeks early is, in theory, a good idea because people can learn where the exits are even if they don't visit the project website. I agree in theory, though I think in practice it won't really work out that way.
What I wish the website had is some more photos, and specifically I think photos of some of the new ramp configurations would be nice. The Dulles Toll Road interchange is the main one where this would help. There are a lot of new ramps there going in various directions and it'd be nice to see some detailed pictures before driving them for the first time.
BTW, since they resurfaced the road it's a much nicer drive. Finally having reflectors as part of the lane markings is long-overdue. Maybe it's a sign of my eyes aging, but I sure like how they make the lane delineations clearer.
Los Angeles, California is also in the process of opening HOV/toll lanes.
See this thread that I started in the Pacific Southwest forum for details: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8029.0)
Couple of pictures from the Virginia Megaprojects website:
This one is looking north through the Tysons area and it was taken on October 18. The Shopping Bag Building is on the left just after the interchange and then Tysons Corner Center is just beyond that. The long concrete overpass about three-quarters of the way up the photo is the elevated structure for the Metrorail line.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vamegaprojects.com%2Ftasks%2Frender%2Ffile%2F%3FfileID%3D6BAADD44-33C2-4460-9FA442BB59B8EADB%26amp%3Bext%3D.jpg&hash=07d59396209b6df73daf8642cc2532b15438f6b9)
Aerial view of the Springfield Interchange, also from October 18. Top of the picture is south.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vamegaprojects.com%2Ftasks%2Frender%2Ffile%2F%3FfileID%3D3C4DECF0-F743-49C2-8B9949329BB74312%26amp%3Bext%3D.jpg&hash=970b2134760f47417fae7f73562362b1a2b1386e)
Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock: In Beltway HOT lanes, where will snow go, and what if a car hits the dividing poles? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/in-beltway-hot-lanes-where-will-snow-go-and-what-if-a-car-hits-the-dividing-poles/2012/10/20/7f0772c6-17d6-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html)
So, will people wanting to get to/from the I-95 HOV lanes from the Beltway be able to do so with those new ramps without paying a tolls? That flyover from the HOV lanes to I-95 northbound to get on the Beltway and stay with I-95 is quite annoying.
Yes...the Beltway express lanes end well before the Springfield Interchange.
Although in 2-3 yrs it won't matter once I-95/395 HOV become HOT lanes themselves...
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 11, 2012, 08:35:37 PM
Yes...the Beltway express lanes end well before the Springfield Interchange.
Not exactly - it will be possible to navigate through the Springfield Interchange while staying on the toll lanes in both directions on the Capital Beltway.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 11, 2012, 08:35:37 PM
Although in 2-3 yrs it won't matter once I-95/395 HOV become HOT lanes themselves...
The lanes will not extend north of Turkeycock Run (at the Fairfax County/City of Alexandria border, thanks in large part to objections raised by Arlington County).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2012, 09:07:33 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 11, 2012, 08:35:37 PM
Yes...the Beltway express lanes end well before the Springfield Interchange.
Not exactly - it will be possible to navigate through the Springfield Interchange while staying on the toll lanes in both directions on the Capital Beltway.
....
Well, yes and no. I wrote into the project managers to ask about the ramps to/from Shirley Highway and they confirmed that there is no toll to use them. I was wondering about it because of the toll gantries located just to the west of those ramps and because "froggie" of this forum had said that the HO/T system will extend east through the Springfield Interchange, although the project's website says the toll system ends where the Express Lanes begin/end to the west of the Robinson Terminal. The project team said the ramps will be untolled, although as Mapmikey points out the eventual conversion of the portion of the Shirley Highway HOV lanes to which those ramps connect will mean that traffic will be unable to use those ramps without paying a toll somewhere (unless you're an HOV). I've tried to find out why there are toll gantries there if there is no toll but I haven't gotten a straight answer. Dr. Gridlock seems not to have any interest in that part of the project.
What's odd, though, is that new lanes built by the HO/T project extend east through the Springfield Interchange even though (a) there is to be no toll there and (b) there are no plastic bollards separating them from the general-purpose lanes. On the Inner Loop, for example, if you take the new left exit for the HOV ramp, you'll see the sign shown below (the ramp in the background with the truck driving uphill is the I-95 South flyover). Notice the BGS for the Beltway. It doesn't have the "E-ZPass Express" banner all the HO/T signs are required to have. The lane to which it refers curves back to the right and becomes the left lane of the Beltway, passing under a toll gantry at the west end of the HOV ramps (where there is to be no toll collected).
I suspect the idea is that eventually they might want to extend the system eastward and they've constructed this part of the system as a provision for that in the future.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fc9fa6718.jpg&hash=703497ec097b90a61dffd6dc561ca340c732ab96)
And/or maybe (this is pure speculation) the HOT lanes project included the implementation of an ITS and they're using an E-ZPass reader to measure traffic flow.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 12, 2012, 10:23:28 AM
And/oryt maybe (this is pure speculation) the HOT lanes project included the implementation of an ITS and they're using an E-ZPass reader to measure traffic flow.
I believe that all of the E-ZPass reader stations along the project also have inductive loop detectors under the gantries (not certain about this, since I have not been able to get a good look at the pavement).
The toll collection gantries on Md. 200 (ICC) have loops in the pavement beneath them.
EDIT: Upon further inspection (yesterday), there
are some sort of detectors in the blacktop below the E-ZPass transponder readers. Not sure how they work (they appear not to be the traditional loops (usually circular in Virginia, sometimes a square tilted 45° (rather like the North Carolina state highway shield)), but are almost metallic "strips" mounted across both lanes).
As the 495 Express Lanes prepare to open on Saturday, public ignorance continues. Dr. Gridlock's column from Sunday's paper (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/new-e-zpass-signs-can-confuse-drivers/2012/11/10/5e7954d2-29df-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html) contains the following letter from a local resident:
Quote
Dear Dr. Gridlock:
I keep seeing signs for E-ZPass along both sides of Interstate 66 between Arlington County and the Nutley Street exit. What does this mean, and how it does it affect me?
I am not a commuter. I use I-66 only occasionally to go into Arlington from Fairfax County and return. Can I still use I-66, or will I have to purchase an E-ZPass?
– Carolyn Nugent, Fairfax
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
When I read that I shook my head. OK, I guess it's fair to acknowledge that the advance signs on I-66 do not include an I-495 shield. Oscar posted this picture last May in the "Virginia" thread:
(//www.alaskaroads.com/I-495-express-lanes-sign-at-I-66-w%27bound-at-exit-66_DSC8907.jpg)
It's interesting to note that the identical sign on the Dulles Access Road has an I-495 shield at the top above the "E-ZPASS EXPRESS" banner (and it's a bit of an odd-looking shield in terms of not having any kind of background–it's a cut-out centered above the "E-ZPASS EXPRESS" plaque). I wonder why they didn't do something similar with the signs on I-66. The added cost would have been negligible.
Either way, I can't begin to fathom that someone from Fairfax is unaware of the high occupancy/toll project on the Beltway, yet her letter implies that she claims ignorance. That project has been perhaps THE central fact of transportation in Northern Virginia for the past four years as the Beltway has been rebuilt, and it's regularly mentioned on the news and on the traffic reports. You'd really have to be making a serious effort to avoid knowing about it.
But seeing her letter makes me think that the fact that she wrote into Dr. Gridlock indicates that she must have at least some minimal knowledge of traffic and transit issues–after all, presumably she reads his column and so knew where to write, correct? That makes me wonder how many people there are out there who are even MORE ignorant.
Eastbound I-66 is going to be pretty darn interesting during the morning rush hour for awhile as people get used to the new setup. You'll have HOV-2 drivers who used to use the left exit who now must exit to the right if they don't want to pay the toll. While that's the same as it's been for the past month or two of construction, you now have a new twist: Single-occupant vehicles who now want to move LEFT to use the left-side exit into the Express Lanes because they're willing to pay the toll. Having criss-crossing traffic like that doesn't strike me as a wonderful situation in an area that's already congested (and eastbound I-66 at the Beltway has been heavily congested every morning for at least the past 20 years).
Meanwhile, you still have people asking questions like whether the HOV-or-toll restriction will be in effect 24/7 (it will)–they seem to think that at non-rush hour it will be free for all.
Then you have clods who are just stupid or who place blind faith in their sat-navs. One of the comments to Dr. Gridlock's column on Sunday read as follows:
QuoteBAD SIGNS. My sister from Philadelphia wanted to exit on 66W from the beltway today, and the signs kept telling her to exit left, which of course she couldn't do, so she missed the exit completely. There is NOTHING on those signs that indicate that the left 66 exits are for HOT lanes only. This needs to be fixed ASAP.
That's all bullshit, of course. There are NO signs over the general-purpose lanes referring to a left exit to I-66. The signs over the Express Lanes have a huge white "E-ZPASS EXPRESS EXITS" plaque, not to mention they're physically located over the Express Lanes, not over the general-purpose ones. I strongly suspect this guy (and not his sister) was following a sat-nav telling him to use the old left-side exit from the Beltway that closed in 2011 and has been demolished. I still regularly see people slowing down in the left lane, presumably looking for that exit. This is why sat-navs have those annoying nag screens with the legal disclaimers.....
So I kind of shake my head at the ignorance out there and I wonder how it's all going to work next week when this is open on commute days for the first time, though perhaps the following week might pose more of a valid test because next week many people may be out of town for Thanksgiving. I think I may test it out on Monday when I need to make a trip to Potomac, though I'll likely wait until after rush hour just to get a lower toll.
Overhead pictures of the Dulles Toll Road/Beltway interchange from VDOT (taken on October 16). This is the sort of thing I thought should have been posted on the 495 Express Lanes website. Useful stuff for helping you visualize exactly where some of the ramps go–for me, the hardest one to picture at that interchange was the one from the eastbound Toll Road to the southbound Express Lanes.
In this image, south is at the top of the map–the Inner Loop is on the left with the traffic. The two overpasses towards the top right are the new Jones Branch Drive exit.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8192%2F8122673903_82b2884afa_c.jpg&hash=799187159fb7574a72954203dbd09ea73abe2d89)
This image is from further west than the first but still looks south. The one-lane ramp from the Toll Road to the southbound Express Lanes runs next to the stopped traffic on the other ramp (leading to the Inner Loop) and it surfaces to the left of the Express Lanes but to the right of the ramps to/from Jones Branch Drive.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8464%2F8122680687_90480d84e3_c.jpg&hash=32e90c3e0f019ea72e6f17576cd7d4d7979e7d6d)
More zoomed-out view of the area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8464%2F8122690534_fbccc88453_c.jpg&hash=d4884da07ff3a37fea532af901325fdb5bdb0ac3)
I-66 interchange here (I-66 crosses the picture with west being at the top left). What I find amusing is that the new Express Lanes ramp from the Inner Loop to westbound I-66 essentially restores the original left-side exit that had been re-routed in the mid-1990s.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8055%2F8122669033_34d4429f4f_c.jpg&hash=9883fac0fe6dc84849a57e25aa578f056fb616c0)
Dr. Gridlock's blog has this very grainy photo, I assume taken on a mobile phone, looking north towards the Dulles interchange and the end of the Express Lanes. I post it here because I find it interesting that there are no exit tabs for the Express exit to the Dulles Access and Toll Roads. I suppose, when you get down to it, the white "E-ZPASS EXPRESS EXIT" banner serves the functional purpose of a tab and that the only reason the other exits have tabs is to comply with the new standard of having a yellow notice for a left exit.
BTW, I have to say the HO/T project has resulted in much better signs for that particular interchange. For so many years the BGS for the westbound toll road never said anything at all about where the road went, just "267 WEST/TOLL ROAD." Though I do find it amusing that Leesburg is not listed, as the road ultimately goes there. I wonder if that might be a political thing to do with the privately-owned Dulles Greenway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fdr-gridlock%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F11%2FTysons-signs.jpg&hash=580e7e00ffcd292b999e887ed53ad0894868e4fa)
What's with some of the TOLL boxes being white?
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2012, 02:15:28 PM
What's with some of the TOLL boxes being white?
Huh, good catch. Interesting. All the TOLL boxes on the old signs were in white, so someone probably just did the same on those particular new signs.
Dr. Gridlock in the Washington Post: Beltway HOT lanes: Innovation born of necessity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/beltway-hot-lanes-innovation-born-of-necessity/2012/11/14/1e452290-28f6-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html)
QuoteOne of the nation's best-known highways is getting a makeover for the 21st century.
QuoteEarly Saturday, a new set of lanes is set to open on the Virginia side of the Capital Beltway, and it's not just new asphalt. The 495 Express Lanes represent a new approach to paying for highways and managing traffic.
I notice one of Dr. Gridlock's latest items references that website you frequently link and some others complain about, TollRoadsNews.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 15, 2012, 07:51:28 AM
I notice one of Dr. Gridlock's latest items references that website you frequently link and some others complain about, TollRoadsNews.
Hoo, that's correct. Like him or not, Peter writes good and informative stuff on his site. And unlike some others, he
appreciates comments and corrections from his readers.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 14, 2012, 09:51:58 AM
BTW, I have to say the HO/T project has resulted in much better signs for that particular interchange. For so many years the BGS for the westbound toll road never said anything at all about where the road went, just "267 WEST/TOLL ROAD." Though I do find it amusing that Leesburg is not listed, as the road ultimately goes there. I wonder if that might be a political thing to do with the privately-owned Dulles Greenway.
There are separate small green signs indicating Leesburg for Exit 45 in both directions of the beltway...
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 15, 2012, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 14, 2012, 09:51:58 AM
BTW, I have to say the HO/T project has resulted in much better signs for that particular interchange. For so many years the BGS for the westbound toll road never said anything at all about where the road went, just "267 WEST/TOLL ROAD." Though I do find it amusing that Leesburg is not listed, as the road ultimately goes there. I wonder if that might be a political thing to do with the privately-owned Dulles Greenway.
There are separate small green signs indicating Leesburg for Exit 45 in both directions of the beltway...
Mapmikey
Yeah, and there used to be LGSs for Reston and Herndon when they weren't on the main signs. I thought their omission from the main signs was odd too.
Here come the Beltway HOT Lanes – you ready? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/here-come-the-beltway-hot-lanes--you-ready/2012/11/16/c1aaa2fc-2f9f-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_blog.html)
QuoteThe world is watching. Or at least the world of traffic engineers, and the world of drivers that swirls through Northern Virginia on the Capital Beltway every day. The High Occupancy Toll lanes open Saturday between the Mixing Bowl and the Toll Road. It will almost be strange not to have the construction on the Beltway anymore. But I'm sure Metro's work around Tysons, followed by the construction of Tysons City, will keep things in a mess there.
We had an HOA meeting last night and two of the local elected officials (Supervisor Jeff McKay and Delegate Mark Sickles) put in an appearance. The HO/T lanes were one of the major topics of discussion during their portion of the program and the discussion underscored to me just how much of a learning curve there will apparently be as to the public. Several of the people who asked what I'd consider to be somewhat silly questions are people who are, on the whole, pretty well-informed (one of them is the HOA president), but they didn't seem to understand some fairly basic points, such as the new lanes being HOV-or-toll on a 24/7 basis and not just during rush hour like the Shirley Highway lanes are now.
It makes me think people must (a) just make assumptions about how the project will work and (b) accept misinformation from other people as fact, and in both cases (c) they don't bother to do the minimal research to find out whether the information is accurate.
Gonna be interesting to see how it all works. The feeling I sensed in the room is that the I-95 Express Lanes project concerns people in our area a lot more, which is understandable because a lot of us use those reversible lanes during the non-HOV hours. If we're coming from the south on a Sunday, it's a lot easier to reach our neighborhood from the HOV lanes than it is from the general-purpose lanes, and people were quite dismayed to realize that in the future they'll have to pay to continue in the express lanes from Turkeycock to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway (whereas nowadays they just have to wait until after 6:00 PM when HOV ends).
The other thing I found myself thinking: Understanding the Beltway Express Lanes, and the tolling mechanism, is a very simple matter compared to what people will encounter on I-95. I'm sure I've noted it before in this thread, but because the I-95 lanes have ramps that allow you to exit back into the general-purpose lanes, your toll is not locked in for the entire length of the trip when you enter (whereas on the Beltway it is). Instead, if you enter at, say, Potomac Mills Mall, you'll see the toll to the flyover ramp just north of the Fairfax County Parkway. As you approach that ramp, you'll see a separate toll to Turkeycock and you'll have to decide whether to pay that toll or whether to exit into the local lanes there. That's not an issue on the Beltway because you cannot exit into the local lanes. People are going to assume–quite understandably–that the two projects will work the same way.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2012, 09:16:35 AM
Here come the Beltway HOT Lanes – you ready? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/here-come-the-beltway-hot-lanes--you-ready/2012/11/16/c1aaa2fc-2f9f-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_blog.html)
QuoteThe world is watching. Or at least the world of traffic engineers, and the world of drivers that swirls through Northern Virginia on the Capital Beltway every day. The High Occupancy Toll lanes open Saturday between the Mixing Bowl and the Toll Road. It will almost be strange not to have the construction on the Beltway anymore. But I'm sure Metro's work around Tysons, followed by the construction of Tysons City, will keep things in a mess there.
As usual with those articles, don't read the reader comments at the bottom unless you want to feel your intelligence dribbling away.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
We had an HOA meeting last night and two of the local elected officials (Supervisor Jeff McKay and Delegate Mark Sickles) put in an appearance. The HO/T lanes were one of the major topics of discussion during their portion of the program and the discussion underscored to me just how much of a learning curve there will apparently be as to the public. Several of the people who asked what I'd consider to be somewhat silly questions are people who are, on the whole, pretty well-informed (one of them is the HOA president), but they didn't seem to understand some fairly basic points, such as the new lanes being HOV-or-toll on a 24/7 basis and not just during rush hour like the Shirley Highway lanes are now.
My property in the Fairland Master Plan Area of Silver Spring, Montgomery County adjoins the Maryland 200 (ICC) and U.S. 29 (Columbia Pike) interchange. We have had an assortment of people out to speak with the HOA dating back to the early 1990's (when the environmental impact statement study that was ultimately scuppered by then-Gov. Parris Glendening was getting under way).
In spite of that, when the Contract B/Contract C section of the road finally opened in November 2011, and in the year since then, I have gotten a lot of questions about the road, which indicate that people were (and still are) remarkably uninformed about where it goes and how the tolls work.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
It makes me think people must (a) just make assumptions about how the project will work and (b) accept misinformation from other people as fact, and in both cases (c) they don't bother to do the minimal research to find out whether the information is accurate.
That tells me that persons and groups in favor of a project have not done an especially good job of informing the public (and goodness knows, they have tried).
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
Gonna be interesting to see how it all works. The feeling I sensed in the room is that the I-95 Express Lanes project concerns people in our area a lot more, which is understandable because a lot of us use those reversible lanes during the non-HOV hours. If we're coming from the south on a Sunday, it's a lot easier to reach our neighborhood from the HOV lanes than it is from the general-purpose lanes, and people were quite dismayed to realize that in the future they'll have to pay to continue in the express lanes from Turkeycock to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway (whereas nowadays they just have to wait until after 6:00 PM when HOV ends).
Certain elected officials in Arlington County have done the region a huge disservice by forcing this change to the project (though it also means that non-HOV non-peak period travel from Turckeycock Run to the Pentagon and D.C. will remain "free" for the time being).
Regarding access to your community, has anyone asked their elected officials if there is any prospect of building those ramps from the mainline of I-95 to Va. 289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway)? I am pretty certain that there is no money for them, and because there are effectively "frontage" roads on both sides of I-95 near there (Va. 789, Loisdale Drive on the east side and Va. 617, Backlick Road on the west side), ramps like that would be extremely expensive.
NBC4 TV: Envy in Maryland Over 495 Express Lanes (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Envy-in-Maryland-Over-495-Express-Lanes-179658781.html)
QuoteSaturday's opening of the I-495 Express Lanes in Virginia is causing a little envy across the river.
QuoteSome in Maryland are questioning why their isn't a similar plan for their side of the Beltway.
I went to Tysons earlier today. Got stuck in hideous traffic on the way back and was gazing longingly at those Express Lanes. I eventually got off at US-50 and took a different way home.
I did note that all the signs are uncovered with the exception of one on the Outer Loop in the Springfield Interchange to the east of the HOV ramps where a single lane splits off to the left only to rejoin the Outer Loop at the eastern end of the I-95 flyover (this is the peculiar lane whose purpose nobody seems to be able to explain). I saw a lot of the types of trailblazers shown in the picture below (this one is at the ramp from westbound 50 to Gallows outside the Yorktowne Centre; the northbound Express Lanes entrance is from Gallows and the southbound one is from Lee Highway). Lots of these in Tysons, especially (I made several stops in the Tysons area and so drove around a fair bit). Smaller versions of the white signs explaining the E-ZPass requirements are posted on the arterial roads too.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FMiscellaneousNovember2012077.jpg&hash=d91e2992eec67a04ca1e61daa625a7722569c313)
The significant thing that is not present anywhere is a sign on the Beltway prior to the lanes' southern end (I assume the same is true on the Outer Loop, but will find out for sure on Monday) telling you where the exits are–something similar to the sign at the southern end of the I-95 HOV carriageway that says "EXITS FROM RESTRICTED LANES" and then gives the mileage to Springfield, the Pentagon, and Washington. I guess the idea is that the signs giving the toll rates help tell you where the exits are. We'll see! The sign at the exact southern entrance has the white "E-ZPASS EXPRESS" banner and then underneath it just a simple green panel that says only "ENTRANCE" with two downward-pointing arrows for the two lanes. Seems like that sign could have said "Merrifield" and "Tysons Corner," perhaps.
Well, it will be interesting to see it in practice!
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2012, 12:07:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
It makes me think people must (a) just make assumptions about how the project will work and (b) accept misinformation from other people as fact, and in both cases (c) they don't bother to do the minimal research to find out whether the information is accurate.
That tells me that persons and groups in favor of a project have not done an especially good job of informing the public (and goodness knows, they have tried).
I don't think that's the entire problem because no matter how hard you try, you can't inform people who are unwilling to be informed. Read some of the comments on Dr. Gridlock's blog and you'll see what I mean. A lot of those lunkheads are still arguing that the lanes shouldn't have been built, which is a really stupid fight to be trying to make now!
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
....
Regarding access to your community, has anyone asked their elected officials if there is any prospect of building those ramps from the mainline of I-95 to Va. 289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway)? I am pretty certain that there is no money for them, and because there are effectively "frontage" roads on both sides of I-95 near there (Va. 789, Loisdale Drive on the east side and Va. 617, Backlick Road on the west side), ramps like that would be extremely expensive.
Not recently. The current supervisor's predecessor (Dana Kauffman) mentioned it once and said not to hold your breath. It's not just the cost of the construction of the ramps themselves. There are also eminent domain issues due to private businesses butting right up against I-95 on the west side, and the Virginia constitution was just amended to make eminent domain proceedings more difficult. There's also the problem that you'd be squeezing in a new interchange adjacent to an existing one (Route 644) and so you would almost definitely have to build C/D roads, thus further increasing the cost and the construction mess (in a place that has seemingly been under construction at least since 1990).
What I'm interested in seeing is how many people get addicted to using the new Beltway-to-HOV connection as a shortcut to and from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. For example, suppose I park the car at the Springfield Metro and ride somewhere and then someone drives me back to the car. If we're coming down the Beltway at night, it becomes way easier to take the HOV ramp and then exit onto the Parkway instead of exiting onto I-95, then exiting onto Franconia Road, going through two lights, turning onto Frontier Drive, and going through five more traffic lights! Stuff like that makes me think more people in my area might become willing to pay the toll for that short segment than now think they'll do that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 03:34:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2012, 12:07:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
It makes me think people must (a) just make assumptions about how the project will work and (b) accept misinformation from other people as fact, and in both cases (c) they don't bother to do the minimal research to find out whether the information is accurate.
That tells me that persons and groups in favor of a project have not done an especially good job of informing the public (and goodness knows, they have tried).
I don't think that's the entire problem because no matter how hard you try, you can't inform people who are unwilling to be informed.
Though they consider themselves to be "informed" (I use that word loosely) enough to complain about "traffic" and why it is so bad.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 03:34:49 PM
Read some of the comments on Dr. Gridlock's blog and you'll see what I mean. A lot of those lunkheads are still arguing that the lanes shouldn't have been built, which is a really stupid fight to be trying to make now!
Heck, at the two ribboncuttings for the ICC (Contract A in February 2011 and Contracts B and C in November 2011) some of the same people that have been raising objections to the road
since the 1980's (and maybe earlier) were there to complain. At the Contract A ceremony, at least one or two were informed to cease their activities (attempting to disrupt/shout down the several speakers, mostly elected officials) or be arrested by the numerous MdTA Police who were present.
I don't think anyone actually was arrested, though it would have been incredibly amusing if the very first arrest made by the MdTA Police in Montgomery County was of an anti-ICC protester.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
....
Quote
Regarding access to your community, has anyone asked their elected officials if there is any prospect of building those ramps from the mainline of I-95 to Va. 289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway)? I am pretty certain that there is no money for them, and because there are effectively "frontage" roads on both sides of I-95 near there (Va. 789, Loisdale Drive on the east side and Va. 617, Backlick Road on the west side), ramps like that would be extremely expensive.
Not recently. The current supervisor's predecessor (Dana Kauffman) mentioned it once and said not to hold your breath. It's not just the cost of the construction of the ramps themselves. There are also eminent domain issues due to private businesses butting right up against I-95 on the west side, and the Virginia constitution was just amended to make eminent domain proceedings more difficult. There's also the problem that you'd be squeezing in a new interchange adjacent to an existing one (Route 644) and so you would almost definitely have to build C/D roads, thus further increasing the cost and the construction mess (in a place that has seemingly been under construction at least since 1990).
Agreed regarding the challenges of building those ramps, but I understand that still more jobs
may (at some point) be coming to the Fort Belvoir North Area, which (in addition to everything else that's happening) is going to increase the load on the I-95/Va. 286 (Fairfax County Parkway) interchange at Newington. Maybe that will push those ramps along in spite of their cost (though I don't think they are in the TPB's Constrained Long Range Plan now) (TPB is the designated metropolitan planning organization for the Washington metropolitan area).
Regarding the Virginia Constitution, I thought that amendment forbade the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions from using eminent domain to condemn and purchase land for private entities (in other words, for "economic development"), but still allowed it to use those powers for public purposes (such as highway construction and improvement)? Wasn't it a reaction to the (U.S.) Supreme Court's
Kelo decision?
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
What I'm interested in seeing is how many people get addicted to using the new Beltway-to-HOV connection as a shortcut to and from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. For example, suppose I park the car at the Springfield Metro and ride somewhere and then someone drives me back to the car. If we're coming down the Beltway at night, it becomes way easier to take the HOV ramp and then exit onto the Parkway instead of exiting onto I-95, then exiting onto Franconia Road, going through two lights, turning onto Frontier Drive, and going through five more traffic lights! Stuff like that makes me think more people in my area might become willing to pay the toll for that short segment than now think they'll do that.
I think that's a very good question.
For the most part, the reversible nature of the I-95/I-395 Express Lanes works well in that corridor, but this is one place where it hurts, since I think there is demand in both directions most of the time, which the reversible configuration cannot handle.
Before the Springfield Interchange reconstruction was completed, I talked to people that would go north from I-495 on I-395 to Va. 236 (Duke Street), then turn around and enter the Express Lanes southbound at Turkeycock Run just so they could use that exit from the Express Lanes at Va. 289 (f/k/a 7900).
That's been a few years now, but I think it may be a (small) indicator of how popular that movement might be.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
Regarding the Virginia Constitution, I thought that amendment forbade the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions from using eminent domain to condemn and purchase land for private entities (in other words, for "economic development"), but still allowed it to use those powers for public purposes (such as highway construction and improvement)? Wasn't it a reaction to the (U.S.) Supreme Court's Kelo decision?
It is a reaction to that case, but my understanding is that the amendment goes further than what you state because it requires compensation for more than just the value of the land–there also has to be compensation for things like lost income/lost profits. That makes it a much more complicated equation.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
....
Before the Springfield Interchange reconstruction was completed, I talked to people that would go north from I-495 on I-395 to Va. 236 (Duke Street), then turn around and enter the Express Lanes southbound at Turkeycock Run just so they could use that exit from the Express Lanes at Va. 289 (f/k/a 7900).
That's been a few years now, but I think it may be a (small) indicator of how popular that movement might be.
Wow. That's one move that's never crossed my mind, but then it wouldn't because I live closer to Van Dorn Street. Also, the Duke Street interchange is absolutely horrid and I avoid it whenever possible. Still, that's wild to hear that people use it as you've just described.
Those new HOV ramps (the former "Phase VIII" of the Springfield Interchange) have really been completely overlooked in the media coverage of this whole thing, and I think that does a disservice to a lot of people. Those ramps make it possible for the slugging system to grow to serve Tysons Corner and Alexandria because it eliminates the nuisance of exiting the HOV at Newington and fighting everyone else through Springfield. It may take quite some time for slugging to develop, especially seeing as how the slug community are some of the most vehmently against HO/T projects because they think drivers won't want to pick up slugs anymore (a stupid theory: Why would any sane person pay a $15 or $20 toll to be an SOV when he can ride free if he picks up slugs like he has for years?).
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
Regarding the Virginia Constitution, I thought that amendment forbade the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions from using eminent domain to condemn and purchase land for private entities (in other words, for "economic development"), but still allowed it to use those powers for public purposes (such as highway construction and improvement)? Wasn't it a reaction to the (U.S.) Supreme Court's Kelo decision?
It is a reaction to that case, but my understanding is that the amendment goes further than what you state because it requires compensation for more than just the value of the land–there also has to be compensation for things like lost income/lost profits. That makes it a much more complicated equation.
Thank you. Not being a resident of Virginia, I had not read the (now-approved) amendment in any detail - I was relying on what the media said.
However, let's look at the provision for lost income and profits from the flipside. Maybe it will mean that someone who has property that is needed for a legitimate public use is more-likely to come to agreement with the public agency that needs the land with such provisions in place?
I have long felt that governments should be able to offer slightly more than appraised value of real property that it wants to purchase by eminent domain. I don't think it will significantly increase the cost of a project, and it might allow things to go to settlement much more quickly.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
....
Before the Springfield Interchange reconstruction was completed, I talked to people that would go north from I-495 on I-395 to Va. 236 (Duke Street), then turn around and enter the Express Lanes southbound at Turkeycock Run just so they could use that exit from the Express Lanes at Va. 289 (f/k/a 7900).
That's been a few years now, but I think it may be a (small) indicator of how popular that movement might be.
Wow. That's one move that's never crossed my mind, but then it wouldn't because I live closer to Van Dorn Street. Also, the Duke Street interchange is absolutely horrid and I avoid it whenever possible. Still, that's wild to hear that people use it as you've just described.
Not a scientific sample, but recall how terrible traffic was before the Springfield Interchange was reconstructed (and the additional lane added to I-95 between Va. 286 (7100 then) and Va. 123 in Prince William County during the peak P.M. commute period)?
Looping around at Duke Street was a method to avoid all of that mess.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 05:00:20 PM
Those new HOV ramps (the former "Phase VIII" of the Springfield Interchange) have really been completely overlooked in the media coverage of this whole thing, and I think that does a disservice to a lot of people. Those ramps make it possible for the slugging system to grow to serve Tysons Corner and Alexandria because it eliminates the nuisance of exiting the HOV at Newington and fighting everyone else through Springfield. It may take quite some time for slugging to develop, especially seeing as how the slug community are some of the most vehmently against HO/T projects because they think drivers won't want to pick up slugs anymore (a stupid theory: Why would any sane person pay a $15 or $20 toll to be an SOV when he can ride free if he picks up slugs like he has for years?).
Agreed on all points above. Those new ramps are a
huge improvement for drivers wanting to get from southern Fairfax County and eastern Prince William County to employment at Tysons Corner and along the Dulles Toll Road corridor.
The slugs and body snatches are indeed unhappy about the new projects, though I agree with you - I don't think their fears are justified, and the new lanes on the Beltway may indeed open up some new slug line markets.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 03:34:49 PM
The significant thing that is not present anywhere is a sign on the Beltway prior to the lanes' southern end (I assume the same is true on the Outer Loop, but will find out for sure on Monday) telling you where the exits aresomething similar to the sign at the southern end of the I-95 HOV carriageway that says "EXITS FROM RESTRICTED LANES" and then gives the mileage to Springfield, the Pentagon, and Washington. I guess the idea is that the signs giving the toll rates help tell you where the exits are. We'll see! The sign at the exact southern entrance has the white "E-ZPASS EXPRESS" banner and then underneath it just a simple green panel that says only "ENTRANCE" with two downward-pointing arrows for the two lanes. Seems like that sign could have said "Merrifield" and "Tysons Corner," perhaps.
On the outer loop there is a sign before the HOT lane entrance with the first 3 exits and distances to them.
Mapmikey
Interesting, thanks for the info. Maybe a similar sign will go up tonight on the Inner Loop. I'll find out tomorrow, got to go drop off some stuff at my parents' house. But on the other hand, the first three Outer Loop exits come up very quickly and are in the core area the project is meant to serve (Tysons), so maybe it'll stay the way it is.
Adam Tuss of NBC-4 tweeted that there were two accidents in the new lanes overnight, but he didn't report on the cause or what happened (did someone go through the pylons, for example).
Meanwhile, the 10:38 traffic report on WTOP said there have been multiple instances of people backing up on the Beltway and reports of wrong-way drivers in the new lanes (the former doesn't surprise me; if the latter is true, why aren't there more media outlets reporting it)?
I won't be heading to Fairfax until the afternoon. Guess I will monitor the traffic reports. Wouldn't be using the new lanes anyway, the first exit is too far out of the way.
I can see how there could easily be wrong way drivers in these lanes. I hope there aren't too many instances of that. At the Route 7 entrance, the T-intersection is a NB exit ramp and SB entrance ramp. Coming east on Route 7 and making the right-turn, it is a fairly sharp right turn onto the SB entrance, and the median nose on those ramps is pulled very far back (presumably to allow buses to make the sharp right), so if you don't take that turn sharp enough, you might end up driving south on the NB exit ramp without even realizing. The Gallows, merrifield, and Braddock ramps all have similar designs.
Just rode the new Express Lanes a few times. Not many people using them, and many of the people I did see using them did not appear to have an E-ZPass mounted on their windshield. Wondering how many days until people start getting bills for toll + $12 service charge and start complaining. Another thing I just thought of regarding E-ZPass mounting. If you have your tag properly mounted in the center of the windshield, you shouldn't have to worry about your tag being read in the left-most regular lane. But I've seen some people mount their tag or hold their tag in their left hand on the left side of the vehicle. Those people might have to worry...but I suppose if they complain, the HOT lane operators will just say that they didn't mount their tag properly so it is their own fault.
I did drive around to all of the entrances and jotted down the toll rates. The minimum toll for the entire length appears to be $1.65, and the toll remained $1.65 the whole time I was out there. So all of these toll rates are presumably the minimums, and I assume that as more cars enter the lanes, they will proportionally increase. The toll rates did appear to be "top heavy", similar to the NJ Turnpike which uses a higher per-mile rate north of Exit 9. The 495 express lanes were charging 30 cents to go less than a mile between the north end and Jones Branch Road, and 45 cents to go from the north end to Westpark Drive, barely over a mile. But only $1.65 to drive 14 miles end to end. I bet they are charging higher tolls at the north end to alleviate concerns over congestion at the merge point between the north end the lanes and the American Legion Bridge. In otherwords, the operators were right in that the lane configuration and toll rates are optimized more for Virginia commuters than for those going to/from Maryland.
So here are what I believe to be the minimum toll rates....
Northern Terminus of lanes:
Jones Bridge: 30¢
I-66: 80¢
I-95/I-395: $1.65
Dulles Toll Road (access to SB only):
Westpark Drive: 30¢
I-66: 65¢
I-95/I-395: $1.50
Jones Bridge:
I-66: 50¢
I-95/I-395: $1.35
I-495 north: 30¢
Braddock: $1.15
Westpark Drive:
Jones Bridge: 25¢
Dulles Toll Road: 30¢
I-495 north: 45¢
I-66: 35¢
Braddock: $1.00
I-95/I-395: $1.20
Route 7 (access to SB only):
I-66: 25¢
Braddock: 85¢
I-95/I-395: $1.05
I-66 (no WB to NB or SB to EB access):
Gallows: 30¢
Braddock: 65¢
I-95/I-395: 85¢
Route 7: 25¢
Jones Bridge: 45¢
I-495 north: 75¢
Merrifield/Lee Highway (access to SB only):
Gallows: 25¢
Braddock: 50¢
I-95/I-395: 70¢
Gallows Road (access to NB only):
I-66: 35¢
Westpark Drive: 65¢
I-495 north: $1.10
Braddock Road (access to NB only):
I-66: 70¢
Westpark Drive: $1.00
I-495 north: $1.45
Southern Terminus of Lanes:
I-66: 90¢
Westpark Drive: $1.20
I-495 north: $1.65
That or they're saying "local traffic, keep out".
Quote from: mtantillo on November 17, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
But only $1.65 to drive 14 miles end to end. I bet they are charging higher tolls at the north end to alleviate concerns over congestion at the merge point between the north end the lanes and the American Legion Bridge. In otherwords, the operators were right in that the lane configuration and toll rates are optimized more for Virginia commuters than for those going to/from Maryland.
The fault for
that lies with the Montgomery County, Maryland County Council, which pretends that no residents of their county work in Northern Virginia (except in Arlington County near its Metro stops, which is allowed according to Montgomery County ideology) and none of its residents and visitors use Dulles Airport.
I think the congestion on the Inner Loop of I-495 from the Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) interchange through the express lane merge and across the American Legion Bridge at least as far as I-270Y is going to be
epic, especially afternoons (weekdays and weekends), in large part because Dulles Airport is an afternoon peaking facility, and in spite of what some Montgomery County planners and their overseers at the Montgomery County Council want to believe, there are a lot of their residents that want and need to use Dulles.
Mark my words, there are going to be an assortment of "activists" blaming
VDOT (!) for this state of affairs, and calling for I-495 from the Toll Road to I-270Y to be re-striped with narrower lanes to add one lane, presumably for a few transit buses only (a really bad idea, especially on the bridge itself), and another attempt at WMATA bus service from Tysons Corner to the Bethesda Metrorail station (like the last time, 2000 to 2002, a few buses won't ease congestion at all).
Quote from: mtantillo on November 17, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
I did drive around to all of the entrances and jotted down the toll rates. The minimum toll for the entire length appears to be $1.65, and the toll remained $1.65 the whole time I was out there. So all of these toll rates are presumably the minimums, and I assume that as more cars enter the lanes, they will proportionally increase.
This would be the weekend rate, as well. It may be a lot higher during peak periods on weekdays.
We're in a standstill near the Robinson Terminal. No toll rates shown: Signs say "495 Express incident/Use general lanes."
Big wreck right at lanes' beginning. Express Lanes entry blocked.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 02:58:43 PM
We're in a standstill near the Robinson Terminal. No toll rates shown: Signs say "495 Express incident/Use general lanes."
Big wreck right at lanes' beginning. Express Lanes entry blocked.
That's cause for concern. Wonder if people are having a hard time figuring out how to use these lanes?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 17, 2012, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 02:58:43 PM
We're in a standstill near the Robinson Terminal. No toll rates shown: Signs say "495 Express incident/Use general lanes."
Big wreck right at lanes' beginning. Express Lanes entry blocked.
That's cause for concern. Wonder if people are having a hard time figuring out how to use these lanes?
Back home now.
I suspect that what is happening is that it's the typical DC-area driver being absolutely oblivious even though there are MULTIPLE nice clear signs saying the two left lanes become the Express Lanes, driving along in those, then reaching the split and saying, "Oh, SHIT, I didn't want to use this," then SLAMMING on the brakes and/or swerving madly to dive for the general-purpose lanes. When I posted earlier I was in the passenger seat of my wife's car and the Express Lanes entrance was blocked; a Porsche Cayenne SUV was up on the back of a tow truck.
After our stop in Fairfax we tried to go to Tysons but the traffic around the mall was so bad we gave up. Toll coming home was $1.05, so we took the Express Lanes. So my first experience turned out to be with my wife driving. I'll upload some videos and you'll see that she was generally fairly clueless about the configuration, and being married to me you'd think she'd know something more about it than the general public. But she can get rather snide about my being "obsessed" (her word) with roads and traffic and.....well, you'll hear her complaining from time to time.
Thing is, I think my wife is an erratic driver and so I was HAPPY to be in the Express Lanes if she's driving because it's less nerve-wracking. She didn't wear a seatbelt until 2004 and only started then after I got rear-ended and pointed out to her that the seatbelt saved me from broken ribs and such. She still doesn't signal most of the time and, as you'll see in the videos, she does not share my habit of religiously using the left lane solely for passing whenever possible. But on the other hand, she backseat drives as a passenger and it drives me crazy and she pooh-poohs it when I complain, so I sometimes try to do the same thing to her to try to get her to understand how annoying it is.
I'll edit this after I get the videos uploaded.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 17, 2012, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 02:58:43 PM
We're in a standstill near the Robinson Terminal. No toll rates shown: Signs say "495 Express incident/Use general lanes."
Big wreck right at lanes' beginning. Express Lanes entry blocked.
That's cause for concern. Wonder if people are having a hard time figuring out how to use these lanes?
Back home now.
I suspect that what is happening is that it's the typical DC-area driver being absolutely oblivious even though there are MULTIPLE nice clear signs saying the two left lanes become the Express Lanes, driving along in those, then reaching the split and saying, "Oh, SHIT, I didn't want to use this," then SLAMMING on the brakes and/or swerving madly to dive for the general-purpose lanes.
That happens at several places in the D.C. area.
Perhaps the single-worst spot is the I-395 Express Lanes southbound, coming across the 14th Street Bridge coming out of the District of Columbia, at the so-called "Temp" ramp (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=arlington+county,+va&hl=en&ll=38.871464,-77.045875&spn=0.004669,0.009645&sll=38.804821,-77.236966&sspn=2.392779,4.938354&t=h&hnear=Arlington,+Virginia&z=17) (it's been there since about 1988) in Arlington County near the Boundary Channel Drive underpass, where the southbound HOV-3 restrictions start in the afternoon peak commute period. Drivers will also
SLAM on the brakes and decide at the very last minute (or even back up (!)) to get out of the HOV lanes and into the general-purpose lanes there.
Another favorite spot for this type of clueless driving (and stopping) is the Outer Loop of the Beltway in Prince George's County in College Park, where I-95 North exits off of the Beltway on the right (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=college+park+md&hl=en&ll=39.022976,-76.943157&spn=0.004659,0.009645&sll=38.871464,-77.045875&sspn=0.004669,0.009645&t=h&hnear=College+Park,+Prince+George%27s,+Maryland&z=17), and people do not notice in spite of the
massive signage that SHA has long had in place there.
A more-recent (as in newer) location for this is I-370 eastbound in Montgomery County, approaching the last "free" exit (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=rockville+md&hl=en&ll=39.13135,-77.170147&spn=0.004652,0.009645&sll=39.022976,-76.943157&sspn=0.004659,0.009645&t=h&hnear=Rockville,+Montgomery,+Maryland&z=17) (at "secret" Md. 200A for Shady Grove Road and the Shady Grove Metro station, where 370 ends and tolled Md. 200 begins).
You can probably name a few other places where this sort of thing happens frequently.
In my perfect world,
anyone that pulls a stunt like that would be charged with reckless driving by law enforcement (Maryland has a "Reckless and negligent driving" section in the Transportation Article (§ 21-901.1 (http://mlis.state.md.us/asp/statutes_respond.asp?article=gtr§ion=21-901.1&Extension=HTML)), but it is apparently not used as the basis for charging a driver nearly as much as it is in Virginia).
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 04:40:44 PM
When I posted earlier I was in the passenger seat of my wife's car and the Express Lanes entrance was blocked; a Porsche Cayenne SUV was up on the back of a tow truck.
That is going to be expensive to fix!
Washington Post: Two teens hurt in crash on Beltway express lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/two-teens-hurt-in-crash-on-beltway-express-lanes/2012/11/17/54884a84-30db-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_blog.html)
QuoteTwo teenagers were injured in a crash Saturday on the Capital Beltway's new 495 Express Lanes – one of two collisions on the newly opened roadway.
QuoteNeither teens' injuries were expected to be life threatening, said Corinne Geller, a spokeswoman for the Virginia State Police. In the other crash, she said, no one was hurt.
QuoteThe crash involving the teens occurred just before 7 a.m.near Braddock Road, where the general lanes of 495 now split off into the express lanes, Geller said. She said a 19-year-old woman headed north swerved right at the split, then overcorrected to the left – sending her vehicle across the general lanes and over the white divider posts that separate them from the express lanes. The vehicle, she said, eventually crashed into a jersey wall.
Following up on my earlier post.....since cpzilliacus has responded, I'll put in a new post rather than editing.
I guess the benefit of being the passenger is that it gave me a lot more flexibility to take pictures and video.
First advance sign on the Inner Loop for the new ramps to the Shirley Highway HOV. Didn't see anybody using those ramps. I may test them out on Monday during non—rush hour since I can use the Franconia—Springfield Parkway for easy access, then take the Beltway Express Lanes to Maryland.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBeltwayExpressLanesfirstday001.jpg&hash=21f7271f119af86c0f06abb90959b68b68262fef)
Not sure if you can see this.....just after the sign shown above there's a trailblazer on the right for the Express Lanes. I had noted a covered-up sign for several months and it was obviously an Interstate shield from its shape, so now I know what it is.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBeltwayExpressLanesfirstday002.jpg&hash=da01ec702a01b53b7776114b0cc54fa66daf3670)
Another advance sign for the HOV ramps.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBeltwayExpressLanesfirstday003.jpg&hash=1878db073a01ca77260d9bc1caee8130bc09c7b9)
Going up the hill on the Inner Loop out of Springfield. I knew what these signs looked like but I find it interesting to see them uncovered at last.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBeltwayExpressLanesfirstday004.jpg&hash=141ed3e2042b7865684edd93fb76e0990ade40b2)
Advance LGS for the Express Lanes. My wife initially told me I was wrong when I told her she had to move right because the lane we were in becomes one of the Express Lanes. She thought that only applied to the lane on the other side of the double white lines. She should know better than to argue with me about where lanes go. (More on that later).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBeltwayExpressLanesfirstday005.jpg&hash=e922a219cadc7ce5065a1bd9d49e2d19a12e14a5)
Passing the Robinson Terminal, you start to see the overheads.....no toll rates shown for the reasons I mentioned in my prior posts.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBeltwayExpressLanesfirstday006.jpg&hash=4ef400e1f81bdbee1c1ae424206baf39e6c3bc5b)
This video taken just after the previous photo shows how they use the VMS to give notices other than toll rates. (Click to play; it's a link to the video–everything from here to the end consists of videos where the image here is a link)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday007_zpsbb25fca0.jpg&hash=682536a729ab10de8e822bf40065bcc24a5efe0f) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday007_zpsbb25fca0.mp4)
Now we're on the way home from Tysons. First video starts on eastbound Route 7. I was going to have her use the Westpark Drive entrance, but the mall traffic was so messed up I decided Route 7 made more sense.....and, as you can tell from her voice, the traffic had already pissed her off big-time and so she took it out on me and I responded in kind!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday008_zps8114315c.jpg&hash=3eeb4ff5417874c6ef1e91fc94729987ef9d6ec7) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday008_zps8114315c.mp4)
Passing through the I-66 interchange. My wife thinks the van behind her can't use the lanes right as I stop the video. I replied that two-axle vehicles are allowed and that it's the big trucks that are banned. A van is not a truck.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday009_zpsc37d4414.jpg&hash=adb665c32085d9e44b625fd64a2fc0fa53f13965) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday009_zpsc37d4414.mp4)
She then got pissed at the van driver for tailgating her and I pissed her off even more by taking his side. She shouldn't have been in the left lane after she went past the Prius. This video is just after we passed US-29 (Lee Highway).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday010_zps3332d7e4.jpg&hash=69eeb2853ce68feceef52e57640c637618311862) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday010_zps3332d7e4.mp4)
Southern end of the Express Lanes. As the video ends my wife asks what "Divided Lanes End" means. I had hit "stop" right as she asked the question. I thought the sign's meaning is obvious because the pylons end there, but I replied patiently that it's the end of the Express Lanes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday011_zps379ad30d.jpg&hash=f2674abb5f06cfb19b0df186e49d69c29cbdcf9c) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday011_zps379ad30d.mp4)
Now for the real fun when we both start yelling at each other. You might recall that in the "Virginia" thread, and probably in this one previously, I had wondered why a single lane continues through the Springfield Interchange past the HOV ramps, then curves left and rejoins the Beltway to the left of the I-95 flyover. Well, I directed my wife to use that lane, in part because some guy was hanging next to her and making it hard to get over.
This was not the best thing to tell her to do. "Stay in this lane" evidently isn't as clear an instruction as I think it is. This goes to my point earlier: Don't argue with me about the lane, just go where I said to go! I know where it will come out! She scared the crap out of me when she slammed on the brakes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday012_zps4d93febd.jpg&hash=2c9390a195da78978b0b7c9aa97c891977ec7c21) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/BeltwayExpressLanesfirstday012_zps4d93febd.mp4)
Edited to add: The Washington Post piece cpzilliacus linked more or less confirms my theory about the accidents!
1995hoo hits the nail right on the head. All accidents happened because drivers swerved at the beginning of the south end of the lanes. Read the effin signs people!!
Also, I correct my previous post with toll rates. They are not necessarily proportional. In the morning, at route 7, Braddock was 90a cents, south end $1.10. But when the accident that 1995hooI described happened, there was likely traffic at the south end of the lanes. At route 7, it was still 90a cents to Braddock, but $1.75 to the south end.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 17, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
Just rode the new Express Lanes a few times. Not many people using them, and many of the people I did see using them did not appear to have an E-ZPass mounted on their windshield. Wondering how many days until people start getting bills for toll + $12 service charge and start complaining. ....
The other thing I want to see is how many of the HOV crowd get busted for not having Flex devices. I've seen an awful lot of "outraged" comments from carpoolers who contend they should not be required to have a transponder and that because it's a ridiculous requirement they are not going to abide by it and will simply put their E-ZPasses in the no-read bags.
To which I say, good luck with that! I find the "outrage" especially amusing because it's been known for
at least five years that the HOV-rides-free provision would be handled via switchable transponders. Plus, compare it to Miami, where as you know you have to register your carpool and you can't register an out-of-state plate. Virginia's system is far friendlier to the customer. I'm not getting a Flex. But suppose I had one and suppose our relatives from Miami or Fort Myers came to visit with their kids. Can't fit six or seven people in our cars (especially not the two-seater), but with the E-ZPass Flex I could just take the transponder with us and ride in their minivan. The Miami system doesn't allow that.
PS. BTW, Mike, I am chuffed to see that I am not the only person in this country who remembers the cent sign and knows how to type one!
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on November 17, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
Just rode the new Express Lanes a few times. Not many people using them, and many of the people I did see using them did not appear to have an E-ZPass mounted on their windshield. Wondering how many days until people start getting bills for toll + $12 service charge and start complaining. ....
The other thing I want to see is how many of the HOV crowd get busted for not having Flex devices. I've seen an awful lot of "outraged" comments from carpoolers who contend they should not be required to have a transponder and that because it's a ridiculous requirement they are not going to abide by it and will simply put their E-ZPasses in the no-read bags.
To which I say, good luck with that! I find the "outrage" especially amusing because it's been known for at least five years that the HOV-rides-free provision would be handled via switchable transponders. Plus, compare it to Miami, where as you know you have to register your carpool and you can't register an out-of-state plate. Virginia's system is far friendlier to the customer. I'm not getting a Flex. But suppose I had one and suppose our relatives from Miami or Fort Myers came to visit with their kids. Can't fit six or seven people in our cars (especially not the two-seater), but with the E-ZPass Flex I could just take the transponder with us and ride in their minivan. The Miami system doesn't allow that.
PS. BTW, Mike, I am chuffed to see that I am not the only person in this country who remembers the cent sign and knows how to type one!
Amazing how many people think the Flex transponder is just a regular transponder with an on/off switch. And yes, much more user-friendly to accept regular E-ZPass and to have a switchable E-ZPass for carpoolers that they can change on the spot. You bring up a good point about Florida making you register (and I think I may have been the one who shared a story of a colleague of mine who snow-birds in Florida but keeps his WV license plates being denied free passage on the 95 Express lanes in Miami when he tried to register). Georgia is in between. You can choose to register your PeachPass sticker as either "toll" or "HOV", but you can toggle from one to the other using the PeachPass app on your phone (hopefully not while you're driving) or on the PeachPass website. You can even set it so that it works toll on weekends/HOV on weekdays, or set a normal toll mode tag to HOV mode temporarily for 4 hours, 1 day, or 1 week.
I just heard on WTOP that if you go online to the 495 Express Lanes site and go to the "missed a toll" section, you can input your license plate number and pay the toll there, plus a $1.50 service fee. This is much better than the $12.50 service fee if they have to track you down and send an invoice. So if you don't have E-ZPass, you can still use the lanes for a reasonable price as long as you come forward to pay up before they come to you.
And I had to use the character map to get the cent sign, and I just left it on my clipboard while I typed that post :)
I'm interested to know if a regular E-ZPass user (with an out-of-state E-ZPass tag) can use the new lanes, with one person in the vehicle.
I'm planning on going to the Doylestown, Pa. meet in December. On the way back I plan to clinch I-83 from Harrisburg down to Baltimore, and I want to drive the new WV 9 routing from the state line to Charles Town (or maybe even on to Martinsburg) so I figure the best way to get from Baltimore to VA 9 is I-95 to the Beltway's Outer Loop to VA 267 to VA 7 to VA 9. This might give me a chance to check out a small portion of the new lanes, and it would be on a Sunday afternoon.
https://www.495expresslanes.com/using-ezpass
"All drivers need an E-ZPass to use the 495 Express Lanes. If you have an E-ZPass in your car already, you can use the 495 Express Lanes when they open."
Quote from: NE2 on November 17, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
https://www.495expresslanes.com/using-ezpass
"All drivers need an E-ZPass to use the 495 Express Lanes. If you have an E-ZPass in your car already, you can use the 495 Express Lanes when they open."
So I will be charged differently than a driver using a Flex device?
Quote from: hbelkins on November 17, 2012, 08:23:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 17, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
https://www.495expresslanes.com/using-ezpass
"All drivers need an E-ZPass to use the 495 Express Lanes. If you have an E-ZPass in your car already, you can use the 495 Express Lanes when they open."
So I will be charged differently than a driver using a Flex device?
As far as I can tell, no, unless that Flex user is carpooling (and thus using the lanes for free). They don't outright say that non-Maryland/Virginia EZPass owners pay the same toll, but they say nothing about a different toll either. https://www.495expresslanes.com/faqs
Quote from: hbelkins on November 17, 2012, 08:23:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 17, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
https://www.495expresslanes.com/using-ezpass
"All drivers need an E-ZPass to use the 495 Express Lanes. If you have an E-ZPass in your car already, you can use the 495 Express Lanes when they open."
So I will be charged differently than a driver using a Flex device?
Depends. You'd pay whatever the rate is when you enter the lanes, regardless of how many people are in your car. Whether you pay more than the Flex user depends on how many people he has. If he's an SOV or an HOV-2, he pays the same rate you do. If he's an HOV-3+, he flips the switch to "HOV on" and pays no toll.
BTW, the same applies to those of us who live here but don't get a Flex. I'm in that group. I pay nothing for either of our current transponders. The Flex would cost us $1.00 a month per transponder, but we have three or more people in the car MAYBE three to five times a year (and several of those are usually in Florida). So it makes no sense for us to get the Flex. If we ever have three people and want to use the Express Lanes, we will simply pay the toll.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 17, 2012, 07:59:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 06:11:07 PM
....
PS. BTW, Mike, I am chuffed to see that I am not the only person in this country who remembers the cent sign and knows how to type one!
....
And I had to use the character map to get the cent sign, and I just left it on my clipboard while I typed that post :)
Well, crap. I hold down Alt and type 0162 on the 10-key. Way to bust my bubble, man! (I'm typing this on my phone, however, and as far as I know I can't do the cent sign on here.)
BTW, regarding turning yourself in for a violation, I saw that on their website today, but other than the WTOP report I have not heard it publicized anywhere else and I doubt the average driver knows you can do that. Of course, it's not in Fluor/Transurban's interest to publicize it!
WTOP Radio: Rocky start for 495 Express Lanes (http://www.wtop.com/120/3123999/Express-Lanes-plagued-by-accidents)
QuoteThe new 495 Express Lanes in Virginia opened to a rocky start Saturday with multiple accidents and reports of drivers backing up along the entry ramps to avoid the tolls.
QuoteThe express lanes' operator Transurban urged drivers to be alert and to pay close attention to highway signs when they are on the Capital Beltway.
QuoteThe lanes officially opened to the public at 2 a.m. Saturday after several years of construction. The 14-mile express lane section runs from the Springfield Interchange to just north of the Dulles Toll Road. The express lanes - two northbound and two southbound - supplement the existing eight lanes in that area.
Google maps didn't made the changes yet to mention the HOT lanes but Bing maps and Mapquest did
http://binged.it/XoU1Gs http://mapq.st/SEZRfg Strange then Mapquest didn't used the green color for the HOT lanes as they did for VA-267/Dulles Airport access Road.
And kudos for the pictures 1995hoo :) did you taken one or 2 of the HOT ramps to US-29?
Bing Maps has actually shown the new lanes for several months (but not all the ramps).
We didn't take any of the Express Lane ramps to/from US-29. On our way out we were headed to my parents' house in Fairfax to drop off a bunch of clothes–we have about a dozen relatives who live in the Breezy Point neighborhood in New York where the big fire was during the hurricane and my mom's been collecting stuff to donate. Since they live off Route 236, taking the Express Lanes on the way there makes no sense because the first exit (Route 29) is too far out of the way. Once we were there we decided to go to Tysons and my wife decided she wanted to go through the streets instead of on the Beltway (which then prompted her to complain about all the interminable red lights). We took the Express Lanes only on the way home, entering from VA-7 and following them to their southern end and then taking that very peculiar single lane to the left through the Springfield Interchange (the one whose purpose I do not understand).
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 08:54:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 17, 2012, 08:23:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 17, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
https://www.495expresslanes.com/using-ezpass
"All drivers need an E-ZPass to use the 495 Express Lanes. If you have an E-ZPass in your car already, you can use the 495 Express Lanes when they open."
So I will be charged differently than a driver using a Flex device?
Depends. You'd pay whatever the rate is when you enter the lanes, regardless of how many people are in your car. Whether you pay more than the Flex user depends on how many people he has. If he's an SOV or an HOV-2, he pays the same rate you do. If he's an HOV-3+, he flips the switch to "HOV on" and pays no toll.
BTW, the same applies to those of us who live here but don't get a Flex. I'm in that group. I pay nothing for either of our current transponders. The Flex would cost us $1.00 a month per transponder, but we have three or more people in the car MAYBE three to five times a year (and several of those are usually in Florida). So it makes no sense for us to get the Flex. If we ever have three people and want to use the Express Lanes, we will simply pay the toll.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 17, 2012, 07:59:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 06:11:07 PM
....
PS. BTW, Mike, I am chuffed to see that I am not the only person in this country who remembers the cent sign and knows how to type one!
....
And I had to use the character map to get the cent sign, and I just left it on my clipboard while I typed that post :)
Well, crap. I hold down Alt and type 0162 on the 10-key. Way to bust my bubble, man! (I'm typing this on my phone, however, and as far as I know I can't do the cent sign on here.)
BTW, regarding turning yourself in for a violation, I saw that on their website today, but other than the WTOP report I have not heard it publicized anywhere else and I doubt the average driver knows you can do that. Of course, it's not in Fluor/Transurban's interest to publicize it!
Great idea but what about E-Z Pass New Jersey users can't they just walk up to a E-Z Pass Virginia costumer service representative and trade the original E-Z Pass tag for the flex tag so that they don't have to pay the toll if they are carpooling on the Capitol Beltway HOT lanes
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on November 18, 2012, 01:00:19 PM
Great idea but what about E-Z Pass New Jersey users can't they just walk up to a E-Z Pass Virginia costumer service representative and trade the original E-Z Pass tag for the flex tag so that they don't have to pay the toll if they are carpooling on the Capitol Beltway HOT lanes
No, of course not. The E-ZPass New Jersey tag belongs to the New Jersey customer service center and would have to be returned to them. It can't be traded in for a Virginia device. If someone with a New Jersey transponder wants to get a Flex transponder from Virginia, the best thing to do would be to set up the Virginia account and obtain the Flex device and THEN cancel the New Jersey account (and send the transponder back, preferably wrapped in foil) once the Virginia one is operative. That's what I did when Virginia finally joined the E-ZPass system. I had an old Smart Tag from Virginia (which I kept) and an E-ZPass from New Jersey. New Jersey charged a fee, Virginia didn't. So I got a second transponder from Virginia (for the second car) and after it came I cancelled the New Jersey account. That way I didn't have a stretch of time with just the one device.
As far as I'm concerned, HOV is HOV. All requirements beyond that to ride free in a HOT lane when you meet the HOV provision should be OUTLAWED. So should service fees for non-transponder use of toll roads without manned cash booths, as well as charging different rates to people who are out of state, and fees for transponders. All of this should be done at the federal level conditioned on the loss of federal funds to any state that even has so much as a nanometer of highway in violation. There should be no discrimination between local drivers and non-local drivers.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 01:04:42 PM
No, of course not. The E-ZPass New Jersey tag belongs to the New Jersey customer service center and would have to be returned to them. It can't be traded in for a Virginia device. If someone with a New Jersey transponder wants to get a Flex transponder from Virginia, the best thing to do would be to set up the Virginia account and obtain the Flex device and THEN cancel the New Jersey account (and send the transponder back, preferably wrapped in foil) once the Virginia one is operative.
But has VDOT lightened up on its historical policy of not issuing Virginia E-ZPass transponders to residents of other states (or at least the ones in the E-ZPass consortium)? The only movement I've seen on that front is the concession that residents of D.C. (not in the consortium) can get E-ZPasses from VDOT. See https://www.ezpassva.com/CreateAccount/CreateAccountHome.aspx which points residents of consortium states to their own states' E-ZPass sites. My wild guess is that those other states won't issue you a Flex transponder, at least not until Virginia's implementation of HOT lanes spreads to other states.
Out-of-staters might be able to get "On-The-Go" E-ZPass transponders, including Flex transponders, in-person at some Virginia grocery stores and other retail outlets. However, they are supposed to register the transponders later (for replenishment of their accounts, after tolls and monthly fees draw down the prepaid balance). I can't tell if VDOT will allow registration by out-of-staters, or if the participating retailers will even issue "On-The-Go" transponders to out-of-staters.
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 04:03:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 01:04:42 PM
No, of course not. The E-ZPass New Jersey tag belongs to the New Jersey customer service center and would have to be returned to them. It can't be traded in for a Virginia device. If someone with a New Jersey transponder wants to get a Flex transponder from Virginia, the best thing to do would be to set up the Virginia account and obtain the Flex device and THEN cancel the New Jersey account (and send the transponder back, preferably wrapped in foil) once the Virginia one is operative.
But has VDOT lightened up on its historical policy of not issuing Virginia E-ZPass transponders to residents of other states (or at least the ones in the E-ZPass consortium)? The only movement I've seen on that front is the concession that residents of D.C. (not in the consortium) can get E-ZPasses from VDOT. See https://www.ezpassva.com/CreateAccount/CreateAccountHome.aspx which points residents of consortium states to their own states' E-ZPass sites. My wild guess is that those other states won't issue you a Flex transponder, at least not until Virginia's implementation of HOT lanes spreads to other states.
Out-of-staters might be able to get "On-The-Go" E-ZPass transponders, including Flex transponders, in-person at some Virginia grocery stores and other retail outlets. However, they are supposed to register the transponders later (for replenishment of their accounts, after tolls and monthly fees draw down the prepaid balance). I can't tell if VDOT will allow registration by out-of-staters, or if the participating retailers will even issue "On-The-Go" transponders to out-of-staters.
I don't believe VDOT had ever had a policy that said they wont issue an E-ZPass to a resident of another E-ZPass state. The site simply directs users to the most appropriate place to sign up.
If you say you are from Virginia on that first screen, when you get to the application where you put in your address, you can put in another state. Another example of this is NY. NY E-ZPass has a similar welcome screen, but elsewhere on the site they say that a resident if any state can get a NY E-ZPass. This because the MTA bridges and tunnels only give the E-ZPass toll rate to NY accounts, so they want to avoid being accused of giving a different rate to residents vs non residents.
E-ZPass NY welcome screen that re-directs to other states: https://www.e-zpassny.com/en/signup/facility.shtml
NY MTA site (see language at the top of the page) stating that only NY issued E-ZPass tags get the discounted toll rate, but anyone regardless of residency can apply for a NY E-ZPass (this despite that the NY E-ZPass site re-directs people away from NY if you are from another E-ZPass state): http://mta.info/bandt/traffic/btmain.html
I might also add that I have E-ZPass accounts from 3 states to participate in various discount programs...VA, MD, and NY. Never had a problem signing up once past that welcome screen.
Had to make another trip out to Fairfax to deliver some more coats to my mom and this time I took the Franconia—Springfield Parkway to the I-95 HOV so I could use the new ramp to the Beltway. I liked the convenience the ramp offers, but I think for the next few weeks I may avoid it because (as I already knew) it puts you on the left side of the Beltway and you have to move right two lanes to use the general-purpose lanes. Doing that puts you in the leftmost general-purpose lane and I think for now I'd rather be further to the right to avoid jackasses swerving at the last instant.....and I do mean jackasses because you have to be incredibly stupid if you can't understand the overhead signs for the managed lanes that have a yellow-and-black "ONLY" banner with downward-pointing arrows.
The toll rates posted at the southern end were the same as Mike reported yesterday, BTW.
I used the Express Lanes again on the way home (went well out of my way up to Merrifield and US-29), partly so I could drive through that weird single-lane spot seen in my final video from yesterday. I think I like the Express Lanes a lot simply for the saner ride, but I don't think I'll use that single-lane spot because I have to change to the right over six or seven lanes to my exit right after there. Plus people on the I-95 flyover aren't prepared for traffic coming from the left and the merge area is fairly short.
Video to follow if the files aren't too big to upload.
Edited to add: Dr. Gridlock reports the Express Lanes website has some updated info, including showing the current toll rates. Check this out, sounds like they're making an effort to be helpful. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2012/11/18/beltway-express-lanes-web-site-adds-travel-information/)
Second edit: Having trouble with the video since one, at about 5 minutes, is 354 MB and the other, at 10 minutes exactly, is 758 MB. If I can get them to play on my PC (so far I can't), I'll take some screenshots of stuff. Otherwise, well, I suppose the new HOV ramp isn't THAT fascinating.
Found another good use for the 495 Express Lanes today. I typically take GW Parkway to the Beltway to the Dulles Airport Access Highway to get to Dulles from DC (mainly to avoid I-66 in Arlington). Did that today (well, Whitehurst to Canal Road to Chain Bridge to 123 to GW Parkway because of the weekend closure at Spout Run), and remembered that you have to make 5 quick lane changes to the left to reach the Dulles Airport Access Highway from Route 267, since the ramp from the Outer Loop puts you onto the far right side of Route 267. Then I realized I could pay a fairly minimal toll (30¢, I think the toll to 267 from the north end is the same as is displayed on the signs to Jones Bridge, as there is not another set of E-ZPass readers between 267 and the Jones Bridge exit) to use the express lanes for a short distance, and that ramp drops me onto the left side of Route 267, so no lane changes needed to reach the airport access lanes. I did this, and it worked very nicely! To get to the Express lanes from GW Parkway, you only have to make 3 lane changes and you have about 4 times the distance to do that as you do to make 5 lane changes on 267.
Of course, coming back from the airport, there is no access to the express lanes going north, but there is a dedicated ramp from the Airport Access Highway to the Beltway which would get you around most of the congestion that occurs on that ramp during peak times.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 18, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
Found another good use for the 495 Express Lanes today. I typically take GW Parkway to the Beltway to the Dulles Airport Access Highway to get to Dulles from DC (mainly to avoid I-66 in Arlington). Did that today (well, Whitehurst to Canal Road to Chain Bridge to 123 to GW Parkway because of the weekend closure at Spout Run), and remembered that you have to make 5 quick lane changes to the left to reach the Dulles Airport Access Highway from Route 267, since the ramp from the Outer Loop puts you onto the far right side of Route 267. Then I realized I could pay a fairly minimal toll (30¢, I think the toll to 267 from the north end is the same as is displayed on the signs to Jones Bridge, as there is not another set of E-ZPass readers between 267 and the Jones Bridge exit) to use the express lanes for a short distance, and that ramp drops me onto the left side of Route 267, so no lane changes needed to reach the airport access lanes. I did this, and it worked very nicely! To get to the Express lanes from GW Parkway, you only have to make 3 lane changes and you have about 4 times the distance to do that as you do to make 5 lane changes on 267.
Of course, coming back from the airport, there is no access to the express lanes going north, but there is a dedicated ramp from the Airport Access Highway to the Beltway which would get you around most of the congestion that occurs on that ramp during peak times.
The Express Lanes' website is now supposed to be able to tell you the historic toll rates so you can look up what it was when you drove (this per the Dr. Gridlock link in my last comment), but it wasn't working when I tried it a few minutes ago. You're almost certainly correct about the rate being the same, though.
BTW, I really love the following statement in that Dr. Gridlock blog entry:
QuoteEverybody makes mistakes out of confusion. A driver who backs up on the Beltway is risking lives to save a $1.50 fee plus the toll to the next exit. A driver who engages in that sort of life-threatening behavior should have his license confiscated and his car impounded. Such a person has no business on our roads.
Seems like the roadway of the inner loop near the beginning of the lanes could use some pavement markings. Those nifty purple/white skip line markings they use for E-ZPass only lanes plus some "EXPRESS ONLY" markings might make it clearer to drivers.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 18, 2012, 05:56:28 PM
Seems like the roadway of the inner loop near the beginning of the lanes could use some pavement markings. Those nifty purple/white skip line markings they use for E-ZPass only lanes plus some "EXPRESS ONLY" markings miht make it clearer to drivers.
I'm intrigued by how rush hour will go tomorrow. I wish there were a safe place to sit out there with a video camera to watch it unfold.
I want to nickname that section of the Inner Loop near Springfield: "HOT or Not" :D
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 18, 2012, 05:56:28 PM
Seems like the roadway of the inner loop near the beginning of the lanes could use some pavement markings.
BINGO! I think that's a contributor to the problems on the Inner Loop.
Unlike the Outer Loop approach, which is on a (relatively) straight segment after coming down the hill from Va. 193 (Georgetown Pike), the Inner Loop pavement markings passing the Robinson Terminal and approaching the entrance to the Inner Loop Express Lanes are on a curve, and the pavement markings are currently inconsistent and misleading.
Images coming.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 18, 2012, 06:28:02 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 18, 2012, 05:56:28 PM
Seems like the roadway of the inner loop near the beginning of the lanes could use some pavement markings.
BINGO! I think that's a contributor to the problems on the Inner Loop.
Unlike the Outer Loop approach, which is on a (relatively) straight segment after coming down the hill from Va. 193 (Georgetown Pike), the Inner Loop pavement markings passing the Robinson Terminal and approaching the entrance to the Inner Loop Express Lanes are on a curve, and the pavement markings are currently inconsistent and misleading.
Images coming.
Virginia seems to object to using much in the way of pavement markings, but I have noted the E-ZPass logo appears in the dedicated lanes on the Dulles Toll Road as you approach the main toll plaza in Tysons. They could do something like that, at least. I can't say I've
ever seen Virginia use colored skip lines or other stuff of the sort used in the New York area to denote different sorts of lanes, and Virginia also refuses to use the flashing yellow light to denote "E-ZPass Only" lanes at toll plazas the way states up north do.
mtantillo (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1140), 1995hoo (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2455), oscar (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1107) and NJRoadfan (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1006), please look at the images below, in sequence from about the Va. 617 (Backlick Road) underpass to the beginning of the Express Lanes on the Inner Loop of I-495. Note that the pavement markings first imply that it is the left lane (only) that becomes the restricted lane, then, as we get very close to the entrance to the Express Lanes, the markings suddenly shift to show that it is the two left lanes that become the Express Lanes. Sorry for the blurry nature of these, but I think the point I am making is pretty clear.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01428.jpg&hash=e7753d7a7304e56d2f5c1c2a18f3c243ba64026a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01429.jpg&hash=0dba3f190b19673d5a2cb43c5849b3cc1faf6e69)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01430.jpg&hash=38b44eabe7bea5a82417cd170a13dc89fbc59139)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01431.jpg&hash=b201514475409432341bba36ff613b09fa1832b1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01432.jpg&hash=4c2341c0afbde96a36f97dc46fb1cd5c200f62ab)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01433.jpg&hash=3b0be617719a23b86302cc5b052d15d97383800d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01434.jpg&hash=44d3249ede0e3c43c7faed4e86fb6c3913fa8fd5)
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 04:03:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 01:04:42 PM
No, of course not. The E-ZPass New Jersey tag belongs to the New Jersey customer service center and would have to be returned to them. It can't be traded in for a Virginia device. If someone with a New Jersey transponder wants to get a Flex transponder from Virginia, the best thing to do would be to set up the Virginia account and obtain the Flex device and THEN cancel the New Jersey account (and send the transponder back, preferably wrapped in foil) once the Virginia one is operative.
But has VDOT lightened up on its historical policy of not issuing Virginia E-ZPass transponders to residents of other states (or at least the ones in the E-ZPass consortium)? The only movement I've seen on that front is the concession that residents of D.C. (not in the consortium) can get E-ZPasses from VDOT. See https://www.ezpassva.com/CreateAccount/CreateAccountHome.aspx which points residents of consortium states to their own states' E-ZPass sites. My wild guess is that those other states won't issue you a Flex transponder, at least not until Virginia's implementation of HOT lanes spreads to other states.
The Maryland Transportation Authority will apparently be issing E-ZPass Flex units, even though I do not believe they have no intention of allowing a similar HOV exemption on the I-95 Express Toll Lanes in Baltimore County between I-895 and Md. 43.
I had Virginia E-ZPass (and before that, SmarTag) transponders for many years, even though I have never lived in the Commonwealth. I changed not long before Maryland decided to start charging a monthly fee of low-use customers. :-)
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 04:03:13 PM
Out-of-staters might be able to get "On-The-Go" E-ZPass transponders, including Flex transponders, in-person at some Virginia grocery stores and other retail outlets. However, they are supposed to register the transponders later (for replenishment of their accounts, after tolls and monthly fees draw down the prepaid balance). I can't tell if VDOT will allow registration by out-of-staters, or if the participating retailers will even issue "On-The-Go" transponders to out-of-staters.
I think VDOT will issue anyone an E-ZPass transponder, especially if you walk-in to one of their offices.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 18, 2012, 06:52:35 PM
Please look at the images below, in sequence from about the Va. 617 (Backlick Road) underpass to the beginning of the Express Lanes on the Inner Loop of I-495. Note that the pavement markings first imply that it is the left lane (only) that becomes the restricted lane, then, as we get very close to the entrance to the Express Lanes, the markings suddenly shift to show that it is the two left lanes that become the Express Lanes. Sorry for the blurry nature of these, but I think the point I am making is pretty clear.
Not having driven the express lanes or the Beltway after they were opened, I'm assuming that you were in the left-most lane when you took the first photos, then stayed in that lane after another lane was added on the left. If so, I don't see the pavement markings as confusing. If at the Backlick Road underpass you're on the right side of the short-dashed line separating restricted from general purpose lanes, you won't have to change lanes to stay in the general purpose lanes. If you're on the left side of the line, you don't have to move to stay in the restricted lanes, though you have the option of moving left as a second restricted lane is added on the left. The only possible confusion is if drivers are misinformed that only the left-most lane feeds into the express lanes, rather than however many lanes (one at first, two later) are to the left of the short-dashed line.
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 08:47:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 18, 2012, 06:52:35 PM
Please look at the images below, in sequence from about the Va. 617 (Backlick Road) underpass to the beginning of the Express Lanes on the Inner Loop of I-495. Note that the pavement markings first imply that it is the left lane (only) that becomes the restricted lane, then, as we get very close to the entrance to the Express Lanes, the markings suddenly shift to show that it is the two left lanes that become the Express Lanes. Sorry for the blurry nature of these, but I think the point I am making is pretty clear.
Not having driven the express lanes or the Beltway after they were opened, I'm assuming that you were in the left-most lane when you took the first photos, then stayed in that lane after another lane was added on the left. If so, I don't see the pavement markings as confusing. If at the Backlick Road underpass you're on the right side of the short-dashed line separating restricted from general purpose lanes, you won't have to change lanes to stay in the general purpose lanes. If you're on the left side of the line, you don't have to move to stay in the restricted lanes, though you have the option of moving left as a second restricted lane is added on the left. The only possible confusion is if drivers are misinformed that only the left-most lane feeds into the express lanes, rather than however many lanes (one at first, two later) are to the left of the short-dashed line.
That isn't how it works though. No new lanes are added on the left. The short skips are between the left and second from left lanes, in otherwords, between the two express lanes. So the lane to the right of the short skips is also an express lane. Then, just before the split the short skips "jump" over one lane to the right to where they should have been all along.
So the signs are right, the pavement markings are wrong up until about the last quarter mile before the split.
Actually, Oscar, that's not correct. cpzilliacus has it right. The far left lane as you pass over Backlick is the one coming from the HOV ramps. It's the one to the left of the skip line with the smaller, closer-spaced dots. If you're coming from the Wilson Bridge or Van Dorn and you're in the left lane (#%^* to those people), that lane is the one immediately to the right of the aforementioned skip line. It then becomes the right lane of the Express Lanes.
So if you rely solely on pavement markings, you might find it ambiguous. But how many real people actually do that on an Interstate? I stand by my prior opinion that the signs are OBVIOUS and that anyone who knows what "EXIT ONLY" means has no excuse for confusion.
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 08:47:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 18, 2012, 06:52:35 PM
Please look at the images below, in sequence from about the Va. 617 (Backlick Road) underpass to the beginning of the Express Lanes on the Inner Loop of I-495. Note that the pavement markings first imply that it is the left lane (only) that becomes the restricted lane, then, as we get very close to the entrance to the Express Lanes, the markings suddenly shift to show that it is the two left lanes that become the Express Lanes. Sorry for the blurry nature of these, but I think the point I am making is pretty clear.
Not having driven the express lanes or the Beltway after they were opened, I'm assuming that you were in the left-most lane when you took the first photos, then stayed in that lane after another lane was added on the left.
Correct about what lane I was in - I entered that lane after taking the left-side exit that runs off from the left of the Inner Loop (or, actually, the long, soaring I-95 southbound ramp).
No, there is no "extra" lane added on the right. I did move one lane to the right.
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 08:47:43 PM
If so, I don't see the pavement markings as confusing. If at the Backlick Road underpass you're on the right side of the short-dashed line separating restricted from general purpose lanes, you won't have to change lanes to stay in the general purpose lanes. If you're on the left side of the line, you don't have to move to stay in the restricted lanes, though you have the option of moving left as a second restricted lane is added on the left. The only possible confusion is if drivers are misinformed that only the left-most lane feeds into the express lanes, rather than however many lanes (one at first, two later) are to the left of the short-dashed line.
No, the two lanes that become the Express Lanes on the Inner Loop are "there" as one crosses over the Va. 617 (Backlick Road) overpass. But the pavement markings imply that it's only one lane that goes to the two Express Lanes, up until the fresh blacktop starts, then the markings are correct.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 18, 2012, 09:35:32 PM
That isn't how it works though. No new lanes are added on the left. The short skips are between the left and second from left lanes, in otherwords, between the two express lanes. So the lane to the right of the short skips is also an express lane. Then, just before the split the short skips "jump" over one lane to the right to where they should have been all along.
So the signs are right, the pavement markings are wrong up until about the last quarter mile before the split.
That is correct. Oscar, I think my choice of lane when I snapped those images might have been misleading, and I apologize for that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 09:40:35 PM
Actually, Oscar, that's not correct. cpzilliacus has it right. The far left lane as you pass over Backlick is the one coming from the HOV ramps. It's the one to the left of the skip line with the smaller, closer-spaced dots. If you're coming from the Wilson Bridge or Van Dorn and you're in the left lane (#%^* to those people), that lane is the one immediately to the right of the aforementioned skip line. It then becomes the right lane of the Express Lanes.
So if you rely solely on pavement markings, you might find it ambiguous. But how many real people actually do that on an Interstate? I stand by my prior opinion that the signs are OBVIOUS and that anyone who knows what "EXIT ONLY" means has no excuse for confusion.
Hoo, that is right. And there are plenty of brain-dead people out there that rely only on the pavement markings (and I think some drivers probably are not capable of comprehending signs anyway).
At the end of this story, WTOP says extra markings are planned, though they don't say what they'll be. (http://wtop.com/?nid=893&sid=3123999)
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 09:52:24 PM
At the end of this story, WTOP says extra markings are planned, though they don't say what they'll be. (http://wtop.com/?nid=893&sid=3123999)
Thanks for sharing that. I think they need to fix the pavement markings along the Inner Loop passing the Va. 617 underpass and the Robinson Terminal. It means griding away the "short skip" markings between lanes 1 and 2, and painting those between lanes 2 and 3 instead.
It is not a matter of extra markings.
BTW, cp, it sounds as though you exited left from the Inner Loop towards the HOV ramps but then bore right back to the Beltway (similar to the Outer Loop movement in my final video from yesterday). If that's accurate, can you tell why they even built that lane? It really seems to serve little or no purpose as far as I can tell, unless it's just a bailout route for people who misunderstand the signs for the HOV ramps (which I think is very unlikely!).
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 09:40:35 PM
I stand by my prior opinion that the signs are OBVIOUS and that anyone who knows what "EXIT ONLY" means has no excuse for confusion.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6633.msg185202#msg185202
:banghead:
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 10:17:12 PM
BTW, cp, it sounds as though you exited left from the Inner Loop towards the HOV ramps but then bore right back to the Beltway (similar to the Outer Loop movement in my final video from yesterday). If that's accurate, can you tell why they even built that lane? It really seems to serve little or no purpose as far as I can tell, unless it's just a bailout route for people who misunderstand the signs for the HOV ramps (which I think is very unlikely!).
I suppose it provides a better route to/from the express lanes over the bridge, since it feeds to the left of the I-95 lanes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 10:17:12 PM
BTW, cp, it sounds as though you exited left from the Inner Loop towards the HOV ramps but then bore right back to the Beltway (similar to the Outer Loop movement in my final video from yesterday). If that's accurate, can you tell why they even built that lane? It really seems to serve little or no purpose as far as I can tell, unless it's just a bailout route for people who misunderstand the signs for the HOV ramps (which I think is very unlikely!).
I did indeed come that way - entering from Va. 241/Telegraph Road.
Allow me to
speculate - I think they built that with the idea that there
may be managed lanes between the Wilson Bridge and the Springfield Interchange at some point in the future.
Toll rate at 530 a.m. on a Monday is still $1.65 for full length.
The VMS sign that was blank in the photos by CP this morning had a flashing message that the left two lanes are express lanes only. The VMS before and after this sign still list toll rates.
There were 0 users of the lanes in either direction as far as I could tell which makes sense because the beltway is still wide open at that hour. Will be curious to see what the rates are when I go home at 445.
Mapmikey
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 18, 2012, 11:05:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 10:17:12 PM
BTW, cp, it sounds as though you exited left from the Inner Loop towards the HOV ramps but then bore right back to the Beltway (similar to the Outer Loop movement in my final video from yesterday). If that's accurate, can you tell why they even built that lane? It really seems to serve little or no purpose as far as I can tell, unless it's just a bailout route for people who misunderstand the signs for the HOV ramps (which I think is very unlikely!).
I did indeed come that way - entering from Va. 241/Telegraph Road.
Allow me to speculate - I think they built that with the idea that there may be managed lanes between the Wilson Bridge and the Springfield Interchange at some point in the future.
That is exactly the reason, the Springfield Interchange Project Phase 8 included provisions for future managed lanes on the Beltway. The inner lane of the outer loop delivers traffic to the inner lane of the outer loop downstream of the I-95 direct connection ramp, providing continuous access through the interchange area.
Woke up at 7:00 and heard WTOP report another crash at the lanes' southern end, this one involving multiple vehicles.
The lanes' website is currently listing a toll of $1.80 to drive the full length on the Inner Loop. That's significantly less than I'd expected.
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2012, 07:11:04 AM
That is exactly the reason, the Springfield Interchange Project Phase 8 included provisions for future managed lanes on the Beltway. The inner lane of the outer loop delivers traffic to the inner lane of the outer loop downstream of the I-95 direct connection ramp, providing continuous access through the interchange area.
Though there is nothing in the long-range or short-range plans about such a project, at least not right now.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2012, 08:46:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2012, 07:11:04 AM
That is exactly the reason, the Springfield Interchange Project Phase 8 included provisions for future managed lanes on the Beltway. The inner lane of the outer loop delivers traffic to the inner lane of the outer loop downstream of the I-95 direct connection ramp, providing continuous access through the interchange area.
Though there is nothing in the long-range or short-range plans about such a project, at least not right now.
I tweeted one of your pictures to Adam Tuss and Dr. Gridlock with the comment about moving the closely-spaced skip line one lane further to the right. It's a good point. One of the things I forgot to mention yesterday is that when I came off the HOV ramps onto the Beltway (therefore in the left-most lane), there was a tractor-trailer in the lane that becomes the right lane of the Express Lanes. I wasn't able to look in the mirror to see whether he got over in a timely fashion because I was dealing with other traffic.
Meantime, I've seen Twitter comments and heard people on the radio saying they tried the lanes this morning and found it reduced their travel time substantially. No doubt the very low toll rates this morning help. I can't make the "On the Road Now" part of their website work on my phone or in Firefox, so I loaded it in Internet Explorer. It's pretty slick, it displays a map and you can click to see what the toll rate sign says at any given point by clicking the "i" icons. It shows $1.65 to run the length of the Inner Loop lanes right now.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 19, 2012, 08:59:51 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2012, 08:46:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2012, 07:11:04 AM
That is exactly the reason, the Springfield Interchange Project Phase 8 included provisions for future managed lanes on the Beltway. The inner lane of the outer loop delivers traffic to the inner lane of the outer loop downstream of the I-95 direct connection ramp, providing continuous access through the interchange area.
Though there is nothing in the long-range or short-range plans about such a project, at least not right now.
I tweeted one of your pictures to Adam Tuss and Dr. Gridlock with the comment about moving the closely-spaced skip line one lane further to the right. It's a good point. One of the things I forgot to mention yesterday is that when I came off the HOV ramps onto the Beltway (therefore in the left-most lane), there was a tractor-trailer in the lane that becomes the right lane of the Express Lanes. I wasn't able to look in the mirror to see whether he got over in a timely fashion because I was dealing with other traffic.
Hoo, thanks for sending that along. I just sent those images on to my contacts on the VDOT Northern Virginia District staff as well.
Because this is about safety, I think they will find their way to the right people at VDOT and Transurban pretty quickly.
I really hope that they can get someone out there
fast and correct the the pavement markings.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 19, 2012, 08:59:51 AM
Meantime, I've seen Twitter comments and heard people on the radio saying they tried the lanes this morning and found it reduced their travel time substantially. No doubt the very low toll rates this morning help. I can't make the "On the Road Now" part of their website work on my phone or in Firefox, so I loaded it in Internet Explorer. It's pretty slick, it displays a map and you can click to see what the toll rate sign says at any given point by clicking the "i" icons. It shows $1.65 to run the length of the Inner Loop lanes right now.
$1.65 on a
Monday?
That must be the "introductory" rate!
Heck, I think at
that price, those lanes are quickly going to be as jammed-up as the conventional lanes!
I have to wonder if part of it is that traffic volume might be lower today since it's Thanksgiving week? Van Dorn Street was heavier than usual, but I think that was bailout traffic from I-395 since WTOP mentioned a wreck in DC and a consequent big backup.
I was really flabbergasted by the low toll rates. As best I can tell, it's never hit $2.00 this morning! That really gives the lie to the whiners who say these lanes are "for the 1%" or "Lexus Lanes" or whatever. People pay more than that one-way on the Dulles Toll Road daily, not to mention what people pay on toll bridges and such elsewhere (especially in New York).
Some clown on Dr. Gridlock's blog has been complaining that all the accidents are VDOT's fault.....just what I said on Saturday, people want to blame everyone except the drivers who don't pay attention. Even if we all agree that some improvements can be made to the markings, the bottom line is that you're still responsible for driving safely and being aware of your surroundings and where you're going, and to throw it in reverse on the Beltway or to swerve at the last minute all to save 70¢ is reprehensible. (I really don't know why I waste my time arguing with the trolls. In this case it might be that I don't have much work that has to be done this week.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2012, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on November 17, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
Just rode the new Express Lanes a few times. Not many people using them, and many of the people I did see using them did not appear to have an E-ZPass mounted on their windshield. Wondering how many days until people start getting bills for toll + $12 service charge and start complaining. ....
The other thing I want to see is how many of the HOV crowd get busted for not having Flex devices. I've seen an awful lot of "outraged" comments from carpoolers who contend they should not be required to have a transponder and that because it's a ridiculous requirement they are not going to abide by it and will simply put their E-ZPasses in the no-read bags.
To which I say, good luck with that! I find the "outrage" especially amusing because it's been known for at least five years that the HOV-rides-free provision would be handled via switchable transponders. Plus, compare it to Miami, where as you know you have to register your carpool and you can't register an out-of-state plate. Virginia's system is far friendlier to the customer. I'm not getting a Flex. But suppose I had one and suppose our relatives from Miami or Fort Myers came to visit with their kids. Can't fit six or seven people in our cars (especially not the two-seater), but with the E-ZPass Flex I could just take the transponder with us and ride in their minivan. The Miami system doesn't allow that.
PS. BTW, Mike, I am chuffed to see that I am not the only person in this country who remembers the cent sign and knows how to type one!
The new I-110 Express Lanes in Los Angeles also require all users (including HOV) to carry a transponder, and they are issuing switchable transponders so carpoolers can travel toll free. This requirement seems to be the most controversial part of the change, because carpoolers who could formerly use the lanes at any time now have to carry the transponder, which requires setting up a prepaid account, and it includes a $3/month service fee (not in effect yet, starts in the spring when the companion Express Lanes on I-10 open).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2012, 08:46:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2012, 07:11:04 AM
That is exactly the reason, the Springfield Interchange Project Phase 8 included provisions for future managed lanes on the Beltway. The inner lane of the outer loop delivers traffic to the inner lane of the outer loop downstream of the I-95 direct connection ramp, providing continuous access through the interchange area.
Though there is nothing in the long-range or short-range plans about such a project, at least not right now.
It was in the plans when the Springfield Interchange Project was designed in the late 1990s, as part of Phase 8. That ramp is there in the schematic that was published then and used throughout the project. Phase 8 as built in the I-495 HOT Lanes Project is virtually the same as when originally conceived.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 19, 2012, 09:38:51 AM
Some clown on Dr. Gridlock's blog has been complaining that all the accidents are VDOT's fault.....just what I said on Saturday, people want to blame everyone except the drivers who don't pay attention. Even if we all agree that some improvements can be made to the markings, the bottom line is that you're still responsible for driving safely and being aware of your surroundings and where you're going, and to throw it in reverse on the Beltway or to swerve at the last minute all to save 70¢ is reprehensible.
This is
absolutely correct.
Even though there is the notion of "contributory negligence" in law (and I don't know how the Virginia appellate courts feel about
that), the bottom line is this - the person behind the wheel is responsible.
Now that
may change in the coming years, as we see more in the way of driverless cars, but for now, if you drive, you need to be watching where you are going.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 19, 2012, 09:38:51 AM
(I really don't know why I waste my time arguing with the trolls. In this case it might be that I don't have much work that has to be done this week.)
There is a well-known disorder across the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's called "VDOT-Bashing," and has been around since the days that VDOT was known as the Virginia Department of Highways.
Populations known to be at especially risk for this syndrome include county elected officials in densely-populated suburban counties, who resent that their subdivision streets are part of the state secondary highway network; as well as anti-highway activists and promoters of Smart Growth schemes.
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2012, 01:40:39 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2012, 08:46:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2012, 07:11:04 AM
That is exactly the reason, the Springfield Interchange Project Phase 8 included provisions for future managed lanes on the Beltway. The inner lane of the outer loop delivers traffic to the inner lane of the outer loop downstream of the I-95 direct connection ramp, providing continuous access through the interchange area.
Though there is nothing in the long-range or short-range plans about such a project, at least not right now.
It was in the plans when the Springfield Interchange Project was designed in the late 1990s, as part of Phase 8. That ramp is there in the schematic that was published then and used throughout the project. Phase 8 as built in the I-495 HOT Lanes Project is virtually the same as when originally conceived.
Correct.
I remember very well when it was deleted from the "original" Springfield Interchange project about 10 or 12 years ago (for reasons of cost), and recall being especially unhappy about it too, because it forced drivers in the I-95 HOV lanes to exit via the Newington flyover into the local lanes, and then slog their way through mixed traffic to get to the Inner Loop of the Capital Beltway.
I'm back from Potomac. I drove the length of the Express Lanes both ways for $1.65 in each direction. On the way back I went to a shop in Alexandria off Quaker Lane and then I used the new southbound HOV ramp from I-395 to the Outer Loop.
I'll have screenshot pictures later today, but a few comments:
–At the south end, the second VMS said that the left two lanes were for the Express Lanes only. Good move.
–A couple of shiny new bollards with metal black-and-yellow chevron-type markers at the entrances at both ends (similar to what you sometimes see on the end of a jersey wall). Also a good move.
–Saw two cops in each direction, both times at the toll gantry just north of the W&OD overpass and just south of the Idylwood overpass. The cops were parked and were out of their cars talking and not running radar, but I slowed down anyway (I had had my cruise control set at 65 mph so I could cruise in 6th gear).
–Regular lanes were very busy, Express Lanes were clear sailing. I really like driving in there just for the reduced traffic.
–The sign at the northern end on the Outer Loop is NOTABLY different from the southern end on the Inner Loop because the Outer Loop's left lane is "Express Lanes Only" but the second lane from the left is an option lane. On the Inner Loop, both left lanes enter.
Pictures to come. Got some calls to return first.
Edited: Here are pictures from the south end. I want to tweet these to two of the local reporters so I did this first. Others to come later.
I took the "single lane" to the left that cpzilliacus and I were discussing and the first few pictures are of that.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT1.jpg&hash=702db9a736722e51974e4c965968749b18ab7213)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT2.jpg&hash=2c0dd3d8007afaa93648764fae416aed6587d1da)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT3.jpg&hash=f7c9e9dc564757f4431d2b48074262442bafe638)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT4.jpg&hash=8b21b0ae07fa28dcef8248bf4cf2bc7a0bc8c9a9)
Now for the important part. First sign looked the same as yesterday:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT5.jpg&hash=48afa6809beb62fe676584502d1ac4f98554da8a)
Second one had something new. Good idea. They should still revise the skip lines as cpzilliacus suggested, but this is a good way to do it in the meantime.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT6.jpg&hash=369de03014da15c7045c84af07c2f839f5c38e06)
Finally, new markers at the entrance itself:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT7.jpg&hash=f95c0e7f3b202921d8e5d4f8eff0d87ddda9fd8d)
Pictures from the northbound end on the way back.
I find this interesting: Unlike the Inner Loop, a new left lane forms to become one of the Express Lanes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT7a.jpg&hash=7d6ebb43f0195432d5d39fc64a5e5286c3a2faa4)
The next sign marks the new left lane as "EXIT ONLY" (I was surprised to see the word "EXIT," as the MUTCD seems to prefer the word "Entrance" in this context) and marks the next lane (the left lane prior to the Old Dominion Drive underpass) as an option lane.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT8.jpg&hash=62ea3efb01812e6ba6ebfe2f1b3592708d5f5878)
Then the option lane splits. Hard to tell from this picture, but the third car up started into the Express Lanes and then pulled right (sigh.....).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT9.jpg&hash=b50d51068a3045ea00dcc4478b9f85531f814c7c)
Bad lighting at around 2 PM or so, but you can see this end has the pylons with the chevrons too.....and one of them looks damaged.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT10.jpg&hash=4d6c0c783970ca7cda11cbfc693fcc6d9cde1337)
The Express Lane ramp towards Dulles is an impressive setup. Wish I'd had time to try it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT11.jpg&hash=472d0d49db0b720301722c4b79e81c1147743a2b)
Approaching Tysons is interesting. The ramp from the Dulles Toll Road comes in from the left and the ramp from Jones Branch Drive comes in from the right at the same place. Very weird spot.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT12.jpg&hash=ccbb6259cd0dedd45d19408a702f1c9c92e13889)
The Jones Branch Drive acceleration lane ends and the Dulles Toll Road ramp's acceleration lane becomes exit-only at the Westpark Bridge; meanwhile, the left lane is an option lane.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT13.jpg&hash=a3e2b5c42bcd2a01097fc300b1210186c688e418)
The video of the southbound HOV ramp from I-395 didn't turn out well due to operator error on my part. I can confirm that when you head to the Outer Loop it is a very sharp curve. I find I can often disregard the yellow advisory speed signs and take ramps a bit faster than they say–well, not in this case, at least not the first time through in my Acura sedan (in the RX-7 it might be a different story). I won't be surprised to hear of drivers getting their "Springfield Stripe" (a play on NASCAR's "Darlington Stripe") when they go too fast. Saw some traffic using the HOV ramps, not a whole lot.
And the final item of interest....I tweeted some pictures to Dr. Gridlock and he had one of his colleagues give me a call to interview me about my experience. They may or may not run a story in tomorrow's paper. I will certainly have my eyes peeled!
WTOP Radio: New Express Lanes cause confusion (http://www.wtop.com/41/3125243/New-Express-Lanes-cause-confusion)
QuoteDrivers on the Capital Beltway are finding themselves confused by the traffic patterns created with opening of the new 495 Express Lanes.
Quote"Like with any new facility or road that opens, there's going to be some driver confusion. These signs are new so people aren't used to them," said Transurban spokeswoman Pierce Coffee. Transurban is the company operating the Express Lanes.
Channel 4's Adam Tuss tweeted:
QuoteAccording to Express Lanes officials, they will: extend merge area and alert drivers sooner to the Express Lanes entrance
QuoteAlso this: Add new pavement markings saying "E-ZPass Only" approximately one mile and again one half mile before Express Lanes entrance
Quote from: jrouse on November 19, 2012, 09:46:05 AM
The new I-110 Express Lanes in Los Angeles also require all users (including HOV) to carry a transponder, and they are issuing switchable transponders so carpoolers can travel toll free.
The I-110 Express Lanes are still HOV-2 for car-poolers, right?
The only HOV-3 in Southern California is I-10 ( San Bernardino Freeway) east of downtown L.A. to El Monte, right?
Quote from: jrouse on November 19, 2012, 09:46:05 AM
This requirement seems to be the most controversial part of the change, because carpoolers who could formerly use the lanes at any time now have to carry the transponder, which requires setting up a prepaid account, and it includes a $3/month service fee (not in effect yet, starts in the spring when the companion Express Lanes on I-10 open).
I wish that someone would wake up and smell the coffee regarding such fees. They discourage people from obtaining transponders, which is (in my opinion)
incredibly stupid and short-sighted.
Washington Post: New Beltway express lanes lead to crashes and changes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/new-beltway-express-lanes-lead-to-crashes-and-changes/2012/11/19/ca0fb4cc-3289-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html)
QuoteThe Capital Beltway's new lanes have been open to the public for just a few days, but it's already time for a bit of a makeover.
QuoteA spate of accidents at the entrance to the northbound 495 express lanes, all stemming from last-minute maneuvers to avoid the new lanes, has transportation authorities scrambling to make changes.
My comments for that article were a lot more positive about the lanes than he made them seem. I said staying to the far right if you don't want to enter is simply common sense, just like moving left a lane when someone is merging onto the highway.
I think the editors told him to quite worried drivers.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 20, 2012, 08:48:36 AM
My comments for that article were a lot more positive about the lanes than he made them seem. I said staying to the far right if you don't want to enter is simply common sense, just like moving left a lane when someone is merging onto the highway.
I think the editors told him to quite worried drivers.
Hoo, is this the ghost of John Nestor, MD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor), come back to haunt us on the Capital Beltway?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 20, 2012, 09:34:29 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 20, 2012, 08:48:36 AM
My comments for that article were a lot more positive about the lanes than he made them seem. I said staying to the far right if you don't want to enter is simply common sense, just like moving left a lane when someone is merging onto the highway.
I think the editors told him to quite worried drivers.
Hoo, is this the ghost of John Nestor, MD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor), come back to haunt us on the Capital Beltway?
I remember that guy.
The current troll is an idiot calling himself "FergusonFoont" who rails on about what he calls "Lexus Lanes" and attacks anyone who disagrees with him as being employed by Fluor and Transurban. I find it very easy to enrage him, but what I enjoy is that he keeps insisting that the left lane on the Legion Bridge forces you into the Express Lanes. It doesn't, and I've posted the photographic evidence at least four times. Doesn't seem to embarrass the guy in the least to be caught lying. I really don't know why I waste my time.
Got to sign off for a while, so I guess he'll be thrilled to think he's scared me off.
I just came back from a trip to Springfield. Took the HOV ramp from I-95 to the Outer Loop. It's a great new option to have, especially if you're coming from further away because it eliminates the need to exit into the mainline at Newington. It's also a great new shortcut for Franconia—Springfield Parkway traffic, as we've discussed before.
Only thing I dislike is that when you merge in with the traffic coming from the I-95 flyover, there is very little space afforded to accomplish the maneuver, and I think people understandably aren't yet used to the idea of people appearing from the left there.
Seems to me the same people who find the Beltway entrances to the Express Lanes difficult should have trouble with this spot:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOV1.jpg&hash=054f879453c5a8f64ad57d91cfec19a6f64b246c)
The barriers blocking the Inner Loop ramp do come up a bit suddenly as you go around the curve:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOV2.jpg&hash=f18d5882a8f5da7b4bbb585c19113172c67ed57c)
Short merge area as you join the Beltway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOV3.jpg&hash=3f1e5a8c78ff76c0f4916f9e34ee656303c98656)
Aerial video of what not to do.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/230063/158/VIDEO-Mini-Cooper-Driver-Pulls-Major-No-No-On-Express-Lanes (http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/230063/158/VIDEO-Mini-Cooper-Driver-Pulls-Major-No-No-On-Express-Lanes)
Notice another car towards the end of the video clip merges back into the regular lanes, directly in front of a semi truck. Behind him, a little white SUV has its right turn signal on, about to attempt to move back to the right as well.
Quote from: andrewkbrown on November 20, 2012, 01:40:26 PM
Aerial video of what not to do.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/230063/158/VIDEO-Mini-Cooper-Driver-Pulls-Major-No-No-On-Express-Lanes (http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/230063/158/VIDEO-Mini-Cooper-Driver-Pulls-Major-No-No-On-Express-Lanes)
Notice another car towards the end of the video clip merges back into the regular lanes, directly in front of a semi truck. Behind him, a little white SUV has its right turn signal on, about to attempt to move back to the right as well.
Thanks for sharing.
That is (in
my opinion) an example of reckless driving (Code of Virginia § 46.2-852 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-852)).
Where are the blue lights of the Virginia State Police when you need them? Sheesh!
Actually, if you look closely, there is a Virginia state trooper driving in the express lanes as the video clip begins.
And look at the number of skid marks in the left-most lane of the regular lanes.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 18, 2012, 06:52:35 PM
mtantillo (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1140), 1995hoo (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2455), oscar (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1107) and NJRoadfan (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1006), please look at the images below, in sequence from about the Va. 617 (Backlick Road) underpass to the beginning of the Express Lanes on the Inner Loop of I-495. Note that the pavement markings first imply that it is the left lane (only) that becomes the restricted lane, then, as we get very close to the entrance to the Express Lanes, the markings suddenly shift to show that it is the two left lanes that become the Express Lanes. Sorry for the blurry nature of these, but I think the point I am making is pretty clear.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01428.jpg&hash=e7753d7a7304e56d2f5c1c2a18f3c243ba64026a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01429.jpg&hash=0dba3f190b19673d5a2cb43c5849b3cc1faf6e69)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01430.jpg&hash=38b44eabe7bea5a82417cd170a13dc89fbc59139)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01431.jpg&hash=b201514475409432341bba36ff613b09fa1832b1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01432.jpg&hash=4c2341c0afbde96a36f97dc46fb1cd5c200f62ab)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01433.jpg&hash=3b0be617719a23b86302cc5b052d15d97383800d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01434.jpg&hash=44d3249ede0e3c43c7faed4e86fb6c3913fa8fd5)
I concur with the pavement marking issue. I also see a problem with the signing, which may explain some of the driver reaction issues. Instead of showing the pricing, the 1/2 mile lane assignment sign should have simply said Entrance - like the one at the gore point does, which you can't see really well far in advance because of the curve in the road and the fact the 'gore' sign is just at the start of the divider and not before it. Another overhead 'Entrance" lane assignment sign a quarter mile before the split would also help matters.
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2012, 02:58:03 PM
I concur with the pavement marking issue.
Thank you. It may have gotten fixed last night (apparently VDOT and Transurban were going to be working on the pavement markings in the overnight hours last night).
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2012, 02:58:03 PM
I also see a problem with the signing, which may explain some of the driver reaction issues. Instead of showing the pricing, the 1/2 mile lane assignment sign should have simply said Entrance - like the one at the gore point does, which you can't see really well far in advance because of the curve in the road and the fact the 'gore' sign is just at the start of the divider and not before it. Another overhead 'Entrance" lane assignment sign a quarter mile before the split would also help matters.
I agree. Now they did reprogram one of the variable message signs (Hoo posted an image showing that), which probably helped a little.
But an "extra" sign saying "If you stay in these two lanes, you will be in the HOV/Toll lanes soon" would be nice.
TOLLROADSnews: After swerve incidents VA/495 Express Lanes make modifications to southern entry to give drivers more time to choose (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6284)
QuoteNorthern Virginia's new toll express lanes on the Capital Beltway are getting modifications to the southern entry in night-time work for the next several days. This in response to a spate of swerving incidents that included six crashes in the first 72 hours of operation of the 495 Express Lanes (XLs.)
QuoteThe first modifications done November 18/19 overnight provided more warning of split and entry to the toll express lanes by:
Quote- adding additional colored reflectors to the channelizing barrier posts
Quote- changing digital messages on electronic signs to read "new traffic pattern" and "use caution" and "two left lanes express lanes only"
QuoteNovember 19/20 overnight they are extending the diverge area and informing drivers sooner of the express lanes entrance.
QuoteHeading north from Springfield Interchange, they are changing the pavement striping to begin transitional dotted line right back in the area where the Springfield Interchange ramps meet the Beltway nearly a mile south of the original toll express lanes entrance. This striping should indicate to drivers more clearly that the two left lanes will turn into express lanes to give them more time to think about whether they'll choose the toll express or free lanes.
I drove around the Inner Loop to Annandale this afternoon. No incidents. I paid special attention to the lane arrangement as I drove and it's readily apparent that NO driver who is not heading for the Express Lanes has any reason to be in the FAR left lane, as that lane does not come from the Wilson Bridge. Instead, it's that strange lane cpzilliacus and I were discussing that splits off out of the HOV ramps to I-95 and rejoins the Beltway on the left under I-395. It's probably fair to say 95% of drivers or more will never use that particular part of it because of where it is: You have to take the left exit marked "Restricted Lanes" but then bear right. Most people won't know it's there and it doesn't really serve much purpose for most people.
So at this point, the "left lane" of the regular Beltway after the I-95 flyover splits off becomes the second lane from the left.
Then after you pass I-395, the new far left lane that comes from the HOV exit is joined by the other end of the HOV ramps in a standard acceleration lane that merges into the far left lane.
After that, the far left lane becomes the left Express Lane and the second lane from the left does so as well.
The only people who should be in a position where they need to move right are the ones who were in the "left lane" after the I-95 flyover, i.e., the ones who are in the second lane from the left. It becomes the right Express Lane. If the skip lines are redone through that area, as the media have implied will be done, then it will clarify matters, although it also bears noting that the 3/4 mile advance overhead sign now says, in big orange letters, "2 LEFT LANES/EXPRESS LANES ONLY," and the advance signs show those two lanes are "ONLY" (in black-on-yellow) for the Express Lanes.
So what happens on the Inner Loop is: Two lanes coming from I-95 and I-395 become the two right lanes and continue to the general-purpose roadway. Two lanes coming from Alexandria become the two middle lanes and continue to the general-purpose roadway. The single left lane coming from Alexandria becomes the right Express Lane, and the single lane coming from the new I-95/I-395 HOV ramps becomes the far left lane and eventually the left Express Lane.
On the whole, it's a pretty sensible design. Correcting the location of the skip line between the far left lane and the second lane from the left would be the major correction needed, and I heard on the radio that next week they'll paint some "E-ZPass Express Only" markings on the pavement.
In this picture, the BMW SUV is in the left lane of the three; the lane that comes from the HOV ramps is to his left and is separated by four solid white lines (no pylons in this area). The only reason why any normal driver would be in that far left lane is if he's coming from the HOV ramps, since just about nobody will use the strange single lane to the left of the I-95 southbound flyover. Sorry there's so much dashboard. I had my sun visor tilted too low.
The lane I'm using in this picture becomes the second lane from the left in the general-purpose lanes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOT14.jpg&hash=76eb74d1d468e8346fbba7045e819e89b3641ee9)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 20, 2012, 04:11:46 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2012, 02:58:03 PM
I concur with the pavement marking issue.
Thank you. It may have gotten fixed last night (apparently VDOT and Transurban were going to be working on the pavement markings in the overnight hours last night).
....
Not as of about 1:30 this afternoon. The last picture I posted is a video capture; the video continues after that and the striping is the same as yesterday.
If they do not get to it tonight, don't expect to see anything until next week. Roadwork is suspended at noon tomorrow for Thanksgiving. I do not expect anything to happen tonight because Dr. Gridlock told me that Virginia's specified lane marking material requires an air temperature of 45°F or higher when it is installed or else it does not adhere properly. I believe it's suppose to be in the upper 30s tonight.
Not just VDOT - A minimum 45 degrees application temperature for pavement markings is pretty much standard for most state DOTs.
And, I'm curious what material VDOT uses for markings on their Interstates (and I hope it's not paint). Most states like Massachusetts that now provide friction-course pavements (the coarse "black popcorn" asphalt mix) on their Interstates and freeways no longer specify thermoplastic markings for these roads. The interaction of the hot material with the coarse pavement results in premature failure of the pavement bond where the markings are applied. This normally manifests itself during the first good snowfall, when plow blades hit the raised marking and end up pulling up chunks of asphalt.
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2012, 06:43:29 PM
Not just VDOT - A minimum 45 degrees application temperature for pavement markings is pretty much standard for most state DOTs.
And, I'm curious what material VDOT uses for markings on their Interstates (and I hope it's not paint). Most states like Massachusetts that now provide friction-course pavements (the coarse "black popcorn" asphalt mix) on their Interstates and freeways no longer specify thermoplastic markings for these roads. The interaction of the hot material with the coarse pavement results in premature failure of the pavement bond where the markings are applied. This normally manifests itself during the first good snowfall, when plow blades hit the raised marking and end up pulling up chunks of asphalt.
Virginia uses "wet night reflective preformed plastic tape" (Type B Class 6 in VDOT road and bridge specs)
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2012, 06:43:29 PM
Not just VDOT - A minimum 45 degrees application temperature for pavement markings is pretty much standard for most state DOTs.
And, I'm curious what material VDOT uses for markings on their Interstates (and I hope it's not paint). Most states like Massachusetts that now provide friction-course pavements (the coarse "black popcorn" asphalt mix) on their Interstates and freeways no longer specify thermoplastic markings for these roads. The interaction of the hot material with the coarse pavement results in premature failure of the pavement bond where the markings are applied. This normally manifests itself during the first good snowfall, when plow blades hit the raised marking and end up pulling up chunks of asphalt.
"Thermoplastic resin material has various uses, including being a durable pavement marking material. Thermoplastic is a blend of solid ingredients that become liquid when heated. It comes from the manufacturer intermixed with some refl ective beads. When heated and properly agitated, the dry thermoplastic compound becomes a homogenized liquid. Refl ective beads are intermixed and suspended in this liquid. Applied at the proper temperature, the thermoplastic melts into the upper surface of the HMA pavement forming a thermal bond. When applying thermoplastic to PCC, a primer/sealer from the thermoplastic manufacturer shall be used to ensure a proper bond to the surface.
Thermoplastic provides a visible, durable pavement marking because of its thickness and the use of intermixed and drop-on beads.
http://virginiadot.org/business/resources/Materials/MCS_Study_Guides/bu-mat-PaveMarkCh4.pdf
Thermoplastic is rare on freeways in VA. The inlaid B-6 tape is much more reflective and durable than thermoplastic.
The document that requires the tape on limited access roads is Traffic Engineering Memo TE-261.
They could also fix the striping to comply with the MUTCD. Dashed means "to one side exits, the other through". The dashed line here seems to be random and means nothing, given that it's the two lanes that become the HOT lanes, not the one.
I haven't been on the Beltway today and probably won't be. Have the day off and have been cooking for tomorrow, which meant drinking the leftover wine from one recipe, checking the rum for another.... Anyway, anyone know if they tweaked the markings? It is downright WARM out there today, so one hopes they might have done something this morning after rush hour ended.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 21, 2012, 12:41:53 PM
I haven't been on the Beltway today and probably won't be. Have the day off and have been cooking for tomorrow, which meant drinking the leftover wine from one recipe, checking the rum for another.... Anyway, anyone know if they tweaked the markings? It is downright WARM out there today, so one hopes they might have done something this morning after rush hour ended.
The continuous marking for the express lanes today start near I-395 on the inner loop.
Thanks for the feedback on the markings. One final question - has VDOT started recessing the markings? That appears to be the way to maximize durability, especially in a snow state.
Here one more picture spotted at the Beyond DC blog showing I-495 HOT lanes northbound from the Lee Hwy (US-29) overpass http://beyonddc.com/log/?p=4088
Edit: Some folks had already filmed some videos
I checked my E-ZPass statement online this morning and I see the toll gantries associated with the Shirley Highway HOV ramps are active, but they don't make any difference in the amount of the toll. When you use the 495 Express Lanes, the statement shows the entry and exit points (similar to a "ticket system" toll road) and if you pass under the HOV ramp gantries it says "H95" for the entry/exit point. It appears to say "ELS" if you enter/exit at the lanes' southern end without passing under the HOV gantries.
No particular significance to this post, but I thought I'd mention it because I was the person who was interested in the issue in the past.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 26, 2012, 12:58:53 PM
I checked my E-ZPass statement online this morning and I see the toll gantries associated with the Shirley Highway HOV ramps are active, but they don't make any difference in the amount of the toll. When you use the 495 Express Lanes, the statement shows the entry and exit points (similar to a "ticket system" toll road) and if you pass under the HOV ramp gantries it says "H95" for the entry/exit point. It appears to say "ELS" if you enter/exit at the lanes' southern end without passing under the HOV gantries.
No particular significance to this post, but I thought I'd mention it because I was the person who was interested in the issue in the past.
It is significant to me, as I was interested too! Thanks for the info.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 26, 2012, 01:04:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 26, 2012, 12:58:53 PM
I checked my E-ZPass statement online this morning and I see the toll gantries associated with the Shirley Highway HOV ramps are active, but they don't make any difference in the amount of the toll. When you use the 495 Express Lanes, the statement shows the entry and exit points (similar to a "ticket system" toll road) and if you pass under the HOV ramp gantries it says "H95" for the entry/exit point. It appears to say "ELS" if you enter/exit at the lanes' southern end without passing under the HOV gantries.
No particular significance to this post, but I thought I'd mention it because I was the person who was interested in the issue in the past.
It is significant to me, as I was interested too! Thanks for the info.
So was I. Thanks for sharing!
Here's a 15-second video I shot today showing the beauty of the Express Lanes just before 3 PM on a Monday afternoon near Tysons (that's the ramp from Route 7 on the left). Click to play. Sorry about the graininess, Photobucket resizes the image and it always distorts a bit.
I had my cruise control set at 65 mph, BTW. Saw cops on the Inner Loop side at the gantry just north of US-29 both times I went through; also saw a cop pulling over a pickup on the Inner Loop just north of Gallows (don't know what for). Some guy blew past me doing well over 80 mph shortly after that and I can certainly understand why. It's hard not to speed in there.
On the return trip I wanted to go to Springfield so I took the HOV ramp to southbound I-95. Interesting drive in this direction (I had previously used it from northbound I-95 to the Inner Loop). The exit from the Outer Loop feels like it's plunging down into a cave or a canyon as it leaves the Beltway to the left. The ramp has a bit of a roller-coaster feel to it, IMO, and this just accentuates it. Then coming out of the long curve to the left is a great place to accelerate hard if the road is clear....which today it wasn't. HOV lanes were slow, 25 mph slow, probably due to construction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_MiscellaneousNovember2012110_zpsbdd7eadd.jpg&hash=12042b5e46d31981d2c0d811445f1a2e1478acd5) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/MiscellaneousNovember2012110_zpsbdd7eadd.mp4)
BTW, I forgot to mention that the revised skip line on the Inner Loop prior to the lanes' southern beginning does indeed clarify things a good bit. The lady ahead of me slowed and moved right as soon as the short skips began.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 26, 2012, 04:16:10 PM
Here's a 15-second video I shot today showing the beauty of the Express Lanes just before 3 PM on a Monday afternoon near Tysons (that's the ramp from Route 7 on the left). Click to play. Sorry about the graininess, Photobucket resizes the image and it always distorts a bit.
I had my cruise control set at 65 mph, BTW. Saw cops on the Inner Loop side at the gantry just north of US-29 both times I went through; also saw a cop pulling over a pickup on the Inner Loop just north of Gallows (don't know what for). Some guy blew past me doing well over 80 mph shortly after that and I can certainly understand why. It's hard not to speed in there.
On the return trip I wanted to go to Springfield so I took the HOV ramp to southbound I-95. Interesting drive in this direction (I had previously used it from northbound I-95 to the Inner Loop). The exit from the Outer Loop feels like it's plunging down into a cave or a canyon as it leaves the Beltway to the left. The ramp has a bit of a roller-coaster feel to it, IMO, and this just accentuates it. Then coming out of the long curve to the left is a great place to accelerate hard if the road is clear....which today it wasn't. HOV lanes were slow, 25 mph slow, probably due to construction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_MiscellaneousNovember2012110_zpsbdd7eadd.jpg&hash=12042b5e46d31981d2c0d811445f1a2e1478acd5) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/MiscellaneousNovember2012110_zpsbdd7eadd.mp4)
95 HOV was slow this afternoon because of a wreck near the former Lorton ramp. One of the cops on the inner loop had a semi pulled over in the express lanes when I drove by around 5.
With the caveat that I did not go to work last Wednesday, the highest outer loop toll I have seen so far is $1.90. One day last week in the afternoon rush I saw that the inner loop toll was $2.20.
So far I have noticed that even though the Express lanes are lightly used in afternoon rush, it is enough to make the main lanes of the Outer Loop run fairly smoothly throughout at near-highway speeds.
Does anyone know if one can exit the outer loop express at Braddock and go straight at the light to head back onto the mainline beltway? I am not inclined to use the beltway express to the south end because I would have to get over 3 lanes in a very short distance to make the ramp to mainline 95 south which is suicidal at 5:15 in the afternoon...
Mapmikey
Interesting question about Braddock. I don't know the answer, but since you can turn right or left you ought to be able to go straight since there's no competing movement.
You can also accomplish the "express-to-local" switch at Gallows if you exit, turn right, then take the loop-around ramp on the right. Forces you to spend more time with the general traffic, though.
Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock: Drivers assess new Beltway lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/drivers-assess-new-beltway-lanes/2012/11/23/1ba33460-334f-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html)
QuoteOnly in the D.C. area, where after months of notices and with signage that could be seen for miles, would drivers be unaware that they were about to enter toll lanes! Then they swerve recklessly into traffic or suddenly stop, causing accidents.
They then have the gall to blame the Virginia Department of Transportation and the express lanes' operators. Of course their excess speed, lack of road awareness and left-lane selfishness could not have anything to do with it. If there is any good to come of the problems, it may be if more drivers behave as one writer who said he would: "Move to the far-right lane and stay there."
– Ed Conley, Fairfax
Quote from: mtantillo on November 26, 2012, 01:04:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 26, 2012, 12:58:53 PM
I checked my E-ZPass statement online this morning and I see the toll gantries associated with the Shirley Highway HOV ramps are active, but they don't make any difference in the amount of the toll. When you use the 495 Express Lanes, the statement shows the entry and exit points (similar to a "ticket system" toll road) and if you pass under the HOV ramp gantries it says "H95" for the entry/exit point. It appears to say "ELS" if you enter/exit at the lanes' southern end without passing under the HOV gantries.
No particular significance to this post, but I thought I'd mention it because I was the person who was interested in the issue in the past.
It is significant to me, as I was interested too! Thanks for the info.
I checked it again this morning but yesterday's trips haven't posted yet. So far this is what I see it showing:
SR7 for Leesburg Pike–entered there southbound on the first day
LEE for Lee Highway (US-29)–entered there southbound on the second day
H95 for the Shirley Highway HOV ramps as well as for the east-side single-lane connections cpzilliacus and I discussed–used all these things multiple times so far
ELE for the lanes' northern end on the Inner Loop
ELS for the lanes' northern beginning on the Outer Loop
SPR for the lanes southern end on the Outer Loop; I assume it's probably the same on the Inner Loop but I don't know yet (need to see yesterday's trip to answer that)
It took three days for last week's trips to post to my Virginia E-ZPass account. VDOT says it can take up to seven days. They're treated as "out-of-agency" trips because VDOT does not manage the 495 Express Lanes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2012, 11:11:58 AM
It took three days for last week's trips to post to my Virginia E-ZPass account. VDOT says it can take up to seven days. They're treated as "out-of-agency" trips because VDOT does not manage the 495 Express Lanes.
This is interesting. Tolls from the privately-owned Dulles Greenway show up on my MdTA E-ZPass Account as "VDOT" for some reason.
Maybe because the main toll barrier on the Greenway collects money for VDOT (really MWAA now) for all traffic coming from the Dulles Toll Road?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2012, 11:45:48 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2012, 11:11:58 AM
It took three days for last week's trips to post to my Virginia E-ZPass account. VDOT says it can take up to seven days. They're treated as "out-of-agency" trips because VDOT does not manage the 495 Express Lanes.
This is interesting. Tolls from the privately-owned Dulles Greenway show up on my MdTA E-ZPass Account as "VDOT" for some reason.
Maybe because the main toll barrier on the Greenway collects money for VDOT (really MWAA now) for all traffic coming from the Dulles Toll Road?
Yeah, it's funny, they all–including the 495 Express Lanes tolls–say "VDOT" under the "Agency" column when I view my transactions online. ("All" meaning Dulles Toll Road, Greenway, and 495 Express Lanes; recent trips on the Intercounty Connector and Pennsylvania's Route 43 just list the agency as MdTA or PTC, respectively.) But I read something on the E-ZPass Virginia site a few weeks ago that said something about checking your replenishment amount if you plan to be a regular user because Express Lanes tolls could take up to a week to post and it said something like "in the same manner as out-of-state tolls."
I can't find that on their website anymore, though. I do see that the ICC and PTC tolls took three days to post in October and the Greenway and Dulles Toll Road tolls posted same-day. The Express Lanes trips on the weekend (Saturday the 17th and Sunday the 18th) both posted on Wednesday the 21st, while the two trips on Monday the 19th both took three days and posted on November 22, which struck me as odd because that's Thanksgiving and I figured they might not post until the next day (just like how the bank doesn't let you schedule an electronic bill payment on a holiday).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 18, 2012, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 04:03:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 01:04:42 PM
No, of course not. The E-ZPass New Jersey tag belongs to the New Jersey customer service center and would have to be returned to them. It can't be traded in for a Virginia device. If someone with a New Jersey transponder wants to get a Flex transponder from Virginia, the best thing to do would be to set up the Virginia account and obtain the Flex device and THEN cancel the New Jersey account (and send the transponder back, preferably wrapped in foil) once the Virginia one is operative.
But has VDOT lightened up on its historical policy of not issuing Virginia E-ZPass transponders to residents of other states (or at least the ones in the E-ZPass consortium)? The only movement I've seen on that front is the concession that residents of D.C. (not in the consortium) can get E-ZPasses from VDOT. See https://www.ezpassva.com/CreateAccount/CreateAccountHome.aspx which points residents of consortium states to their own states' E-ZPass sites. My wild guess is that those other states won't issue you a Flex transponder, at least not until Virginia's implementation of HOT lanes spreads to other states.
The Maryland Transportation Authority will apparently be issing E-ZPass Flex units, even though I do not believe they have no intention of allowing a similar HOV exemption on the I-95 Express Toll Lanes in Baltimore County between I-895 and Md. 43.
I had Virginia E-ZPass (and before that, SmarTag) transponders for many years, even though I have never lived in the Commonwealth. I changed not long before Maryland decided to start charging a monthly fee of low-use customers. :-)
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 04:03:13 PM
Out-of-staters might be able to get "On-The-Go" E-ZPass transponders, including Flex transponders, in-person at some Virginia grocery stores and other retail outlets. However, they are supposed to register the transponders later (for replenishment of their accounts, after tolls and monthly fees draw down the prepaid balance). I can't tell if VDOT will allow registration by out-of-staters, or if the participating retailers will even issue "On-The-Go" transponders to out-of-staters.
I think VDOT will issue anyone an E-ZPass transponder, especially if you walk-in to one of their offices.
A better sloution to this E-Z Pass flex problem is to have E-Z Pass New Jersey and New York offer flex tags because some of these E-Z Pass NJ/NY users would use the I-495 HOT lanes from VA-267 to I-395 in Springfield, VA :D
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on November 29, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
A better sloution to this E-Z Pass flex problem is to have E-Z Pass New Jersey and New York offer flex tags because some of these E-Z Pass NJ/NY users would use the I-495 HOT lanes from VA-267 to I-395 in Springfield, VA :D
MdTA
does offer E-ZPass Flex transponder, even though there are no current plans for MdTA to be operating HOV/Toll lanes.
I know - I got one from the MdTA's Gaithersburg office (located in the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration's office there (=DMV in most other states)).
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on November 29, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 18, 2012, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 04:03:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2012, 01:04:42 PM
No, of course not. The E-ZPass New Jersey tag belongs to the New Jersey customer service center and would have to be returned to them. It can't be traded in for a Virginia device. If someone with a New Jersey transponder wants to get a Flex transponder from Virginia, the best thing to do would be to set up the Virginia account and obtain the Flex device and THEN cancel the New Jersey account (and send the transponder back, preferably wrapped in foil) once the Virginia one is operative.
But has VDOT lightened up on its historical policy of not issuing Virginia E-ZPass transponders to residents of other states (or at least the ones in the E-ZPass consortium)? The only movement I've seen on that front is the concession that residents of D.C. (not in the consortium) can get E-ZPasses from VDOT. See https://www.ezpassva.com/CreateAccount/CreateAccountHome.aspx which points residents of consortium states to their own states' E-ZPass sites. My wild guess is that those other states won't issue you a Flex transponder, at least not until Virginia's implementation of HOT lanes spreads to other states.
The Maryland Transportation Authority will apparently be issing E-ZPass Flex units, even though I do not believe they have no intention of allowing a similar HOV exemption on the I-95 Express Toll Lanes in Baltimore County between I-895 and Md. 43.
I had Virginia E-ZPass (and before that, SmarTag) transponders for many years, even though I have never lived in the Commonwealth. I changed not long before Maryland decided to start charging a monthly fee of low-use customers. :-)
Quote from: oscar on November 18, 2012, 04:03:13 PM
Out-of-staters might be able to get "On-The-Go" E-ZPass transponders, including Flex transponders, in-person at some Virginia grocery stores and other retail outlets. However, they are supposed to register the transponders later (for replenishment of their accounts, after tolls and monthly fees draw down the prepaid balance). I can't tell if VDOT will allow registration by out-of-staters, or if the participating retailers will even issue "On-The-Go" transponders to out-of-staters.
I think VDOT will issue anyone an E-ZPass transponder, especially if you walk-in to one of their offices.
A better sloution to this E-Z Pass flex problem is to have E-Z Pass New Jersey and New York offer flex tags because some of these E-Z Pass NJ/NY users would use the I-495 HOT lanes from VA-267 to I-395 in Springfield, VA :D
I'd rather they just use a camera to find out if there are passengers and waive the toll if there are.
WTOP reports some initial statistics. (http://www.wtop.com/654/3138835/First-look-at-Express-Lanes-) The one I find interesting is the part about the maximum toll so far to drive the full length having been $2.70.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2012, 10:15:40 PM
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on November 29, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
A better sloution to this E-Z Pass flex problem is to have E-Z Pass New Jersey and New York offer flex tags because some of these E-Z Pass NJ/NY users would use the I-495 HOT lanes from VA-267 to I-395 in Springfield, VA :D
MdTA does offer E-ZPass Flex transponder, even though there are no current plans for MdTA to be operating HOV/Toll lanes.
I know - I got one from the MdTA's Gaithersburg office (located in the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration's office there (=DMV in most other states)).
Aren't the Express Lanes on 95 in Baltimore County supposed to be HOT lanes? If so that would explain why MdTA would be offering the flex transponders. If not it would just be Maryland making life easier on those who live in the DC suburbs which isn't that bad either.
quote: end. always.
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on December 01, 2012, 12:29:25 AM
Aren't the Express Lanes on 95 in Baltimore County supposed to be HOT lanes? If so that would explain why MdTA would be offering the flex transponders. If not it would just be Maryland making life easier on those who live in the DC suburbs which isn't that bad either.
quote: end. always.
MdTA has
always called those lanes Express Toll Lanes,
not HOV/Toll Lanes.
My guess is that they will stay that way, just barrier-separated toll lanes with electronic toll collection.
At one time, when I-95/JFK Highway was widened from six lanes to eight lanes between Md. 43 (White Marsh), Exit 64 and Md. 24 (Edgewood and Bel Air), Exit 77, the left lane was marked "Future HOV Lane," but those signs were removed some years ago.
I think MdTA started offering the E-ZPass Flex transponder as a courtesy to D.C.-area Maryland users of the I-495 toll lanes, though there
may come a time when a discount or free passage is offered to HOVs in Maryland. As far as I know, there are no current plans for that on any of MdTA's toll roads or toll crossings.
Everything I've read says that the lanes Maryland are building will be tolled for everyone at all times, no HOV exemption.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 01, 2012, 11:23:14 AM
Everything I've read says that the lanes Maryland are building will be tolled for everyone at all times, no HOV exemption.
The only HOV exemption currently in Maryland on toll roads and toll crossings is for buses.
Most line-haul buses that run on the ICC or crossing the Bay Bridge (there are a few MTA transit routes that use the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore City, I am not aware of any that use the I-895 or I-695 crossings) have orange non-revenue E-ZPass transponders on their windshields (for some reason, I don't think Virginia issues non-revenue transponders in orange cases like Maryland does, even though the Dulles Toll Road, the Dulles Greenway and the I-495 HOV/Toll Lanes all provide free passage for line-haul buses).
The buses on the ICC and crossing the Bay Bridge to Queen Anne's County are all contractor-operated.
The new service on the ICC
could presumably have been run by WMATA, but I think Maryland DOT has made an (unstated for public consumption) policy decision not to have any new service provided by WMATA - even the Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway, if they get funded for construction, will not be operated by WMATA.
The relatively recent arbitration win followed-up by a court win awarding WMATA employees a generous wage increase when most other D.C.-area public employees have gotten little or nothing in recent years probably motivated that decision.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2012, 11:59:54 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2012, 11:45:48 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2012, 11:11:58 AM
It took three days for last week's trips to post to my Virginia E-ZPass account. VDOT says it can take up to seven days. They're treated as "out-of-agency" trips because VDOT does not manage the 495 Express Lanes.
This is interesting. Tolls from the privately-owned Dulles Greenway show up on my MdTA E-ZPass Account as "VDOT" for some reason.
Maybe because the main toll barrier on the Greenway collects money for VDOT (really MWAA now) for all traffic coming from the Dulles Toll Road?
Yeah, it's funny, they all–including the 495 Express Lanes tolls–say "VDOT" under the "Agency" column when I view my transactions online. ("All" meaning Dulles Toll Road, Greenway, and 495 Express Lanes; recent trips on the Intercounty Connector and Pennsylvania's Route 43 just list the agency as MdTA or PTC, respectively.) But I read something on the E-ZPass Virginia site a few weeks ago that said something about checking your replenishment amount if you plan to be a regular user because Express Lanes tolls could take up to a week to post and it said something like "in the same manner as out-of-state tolls."
I can't find that on their website anymore, though. I do see that the ICC and PTC tolls took three days to post in October and the Greenway and Dulles Toll Road tolls posted same-day. The Express Lanes trips on the weekend (Saturday the 17th and Sunday the 18th) both posted on Wednesday the 21st, while the two trips on Monday the 19th both took three days and posted on November 22, which struck me as odd because that's Thanksgiving and I figured they might not post until the next day (just like how the bank doesn't let you schedule an electronic bill payment on a holiday).
In some states in the Northeast that have multiple toll agencies, each agency issues its own tags (see NY, which has tags branded MTA, Port Authority, Thruway Authority, etc.), even if they are all issued through one service center per state (all the above mentioned agencies issue through the NY Service Center). The key difference being that each agency is a member of the E-ZPass interagency group (IAG).
In Virginia, a decision was made a while back (probably dating back to when Smart Tag, which had one service center for all toll agencies in Virginia, merged with E-ZPass) that VDOT as a whole would join the IAG, and all toll agencies in Virginia (VDOT, CBBT, City of Chesapeake, MWAA, RMA, Greenway, Pocahontas Parkway/495 express/95 express [all Transurban]) would go through VDOT for E-Zpass services. Thus, every E-ZPass issued in Virginia is a VDOT branded tag, and the Greenway doesn't issue tags separately from MWAA, for example.
Thus, any transaction occurring in Virginia is considered an internal "VDOT" transaction for Virginia account holders.
The processing delay comes from the way the trips are linked I think. The ICC uses a similar method of compiling trips....gantries over the mainline on each segment....and the computer has to go in and figure out that the multiple tag reads are one "trip" that is charged at the rate in effect when the first gantry was passed. The ICC also has a similar delay in processing trips, usually taking a couple of days more than any other standard MdTA or other out of state transaction to post. I suppose this is because it takes a while to crunch all of the numbers, and it has to wait for "lack of any additional tag reads" to show that you've exited. This is different from point-based barrier tolls where a certain amount is charged at each barrier, and multiple barriers passed = multiple tolls, not "one trip". This is also different from a ticket-system based toll where each toll plaza lane is designated as an entry or exit. At entry lanes, the entry information is written onto the E-ZPass tag. At exit lanes, the entry information is read off the tag, the toll computed, and the transaction can post immediately for in-state or within a day for out-of-state. The writing of entry information onto the tag wouldn't work on the ICC or 495 express lanes, because one man's entry gantry could be another man's exit gantry...the system doesn't know until it stops seeing that tag within the system, and it takes a while for it to realize that, and then to compute the toll.
But somehow toll agencies seem to prefer doing trip/distance based tolls with mainline gantries over each segment, instead of over each entry/exit ramp, as we've seen with the ICC, 495 express lanes, and the proposed conversion of the PA Turnpike. I'm sure Transurban took into account this delay when they did their financial analysis. Another downside of using VDOT for E-ZPass...they have to wait for transactions to post before they can get any money...VDOT holds the money in everyone's E-ZPass account. This unlike the MTA in NY, for example, which gets to hold all of the money in anyone's E-ZPass account (for MTA tags issued by the NY Service Center) and collect interest on it while it sits there. Transurban doesn't have that luxury, since it doesn't issue tags.
Washington Post Op-Ed: Coming to terms with "˜Lexus' express lanes on the Virginia side of the Beltway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/coming-to-terms-with-lexus-express-lanes-on-the-virginia-side-of-the-beltway/2012/12/01/8e87ca86-3b4c-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html)
QuoteLet me start by stating plainly that I recoil at the concept of letting private corporations make millions of dollars by operating public roads.
QuoteDwight Eisenhower built the interstate highway system with taxpayers' dollars, and it's been quite a success. So why are we letting a company based in Australia drain profits from our region for the next 75 years for running the new, confusingly tolled express lanes along 14 miles of the Beltway in Northern Virginia?
I'd be inclined to agree with that person, if the entirety of the Beltway were being tolled.
I don't see how there's anything wrong with allowing private companies to build new roads that supplement existing roads. If you don't like the idea of Transurban making money off you, take the general purpose lanes rather than the Express lanes. He talks as if the Express lanes have become the ONLY lanes.
I find the "Lexus Lanes" sloganeering especially tiresome in light of some other very high tolls. Taking the Dulles Greenway/Dulles Toll Road combination costs over $7.00 each way (total of about 26 miles). The Verrazano in New York was $13.00 last I knew. The ICC in Maryland is around $4.00. Nobody rails against the "Bentley Bridge" or the "Ferrari Freeway" or "Rolls-Royce Roadway." True, the Beltway toll is continuously variable and could at some point exceed the others I've mentioned–but right now it looks unlikely to do that anytime soon.
I think the point that the Beltway has exactly the same number of lanes as before, plus a massively-improved interchange at I-66 for all traffic, is the key point. It's also the key difference from the I-95 project, which I find very problematic for the reasons discussed at the beginning of this thread.
Incidentally, everyone I know who's driven in the Beltway lanes loved it. Went out to dinner with my parents on Saturday for my dad's birthday and he had used then earlier that day. His only complaint? Hard to keep it below 80 mph. (I was also surprised that when he exited at Gallows he took Woodburn to 236 instead of just looping into the local lanes for one exit. He said the idea never occurred to him!)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2012, 12:10:21 AM
Washington Post Op-Ed: Coming to terms with "˜Lexus' express lanes on the Virginia side of the Beltway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/coming-to-terms-with-lexus-express-lanes-on-the-virginia-side-of-the-beltway/2012/12/01/8e87ca86-3b4c-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html)
TOLLROADSnews response: Lame-brained lefty at Washington Post gripes about Capital Beltway 495 Express Lanes offending his "principles" CRITICISM (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6301)
QuoteWashington Post metro affairs columnist Robert McCartney writes that the new 495 Express Lanes on the Capital Beltway "offer shorter travel times to people with money. So they're Lexus lanes." And he says he's "not crazy about... extra convenience for the affluent" because "It offends my egalitarian sentiments."
QuotePoor McCartney is going to spend his life being offended, if we take him at his word.
QuoteFirst class sections on airlines. Million dollar plus homes. Hotels with rooms over $400/night. Plastic surgeons and shrinks. Fancy cheeses in the supermarket. House cleaning services. Fine wines at $30/bottle. Special seating at the ball game. Cruises in the Caribbean.
QuoteAnd of course those Lexus luxury cars.
QuoteThe list is endless of goods and services that provide extra convenience for the affluent, and supposedly provide offense to the likes of McCartney.
BTW, forgot to mention: We were coming back from the 9:30 Club late last night (after midnight) and used the southbound general lanes of I-395 because the HOV was running inbound. As we went around Exit 1C to the Outer Loop I noticed that one last sign has been uncovered on the Beltway. It's located just after the left exit from the Outer Loop to the inbound HOV and it's for the single-lane connection cpzilliacus and I were discussing earlier, the one where my wife starts yelling at me in the final video I posted from the lanes' first day of operation. What's odd about the sign is its design: It has the white "RESTRICTED LANES" banner at the top and then refers to I-95 North/I-495 East towards Baltimore, with a left-exit arrow.
I find the sign peculiar because there are no restricted lanes there and the single lane doesn't connect to anything that is ever subject to an HOV restriction–all it does is branch left and then reconnect to the general-purpose Beltway on the left side of the northbound I-95 flyover. A more correct design MIGHT have mimicked the "I-495 NORTH/Tysons Corner" sign on the Inner Loop after you take the HOV exit–a single lane splits back off to take you back to the Beltway. HOWEVER, I also understand why that would be problematic on the Outer Loop–there, the left lane to which the sign refers is adjacent to the three thru lanes and having a sign implying that you had to exit left to go towards Baltimore, when in fact all you have to do is stay straight ahead, would have been a recipe for trouble. (Indeed it makes me think of the bad old days when VDOT persisted in referring to the thru lanes of I-495 there as an "Exit" and a lot of people quite rightly objected.)
If I can get a picture this afternoon I will.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 26, 2012, 08:37:51 PM
....
Does anyone know if one can exit the outer loop express at Braddock and go straight at the light to head back onto the mainline beltway? I am not inclined to use the beltway express to the south end because I would have to get over 3 lanes in a very short distance to make the ramp to mainline 95 south which is suicidal at 5:15 in the afternoon...
....
I finally have an answer to this question. Took the Braddock exit from the Express Lanes today to see what was allowed. The ramp ends at a traffic light on Braddock and there are two lanes marked left-only and right-only. So legally you have to turn. As a practical matter, there is no opposing movement that would prevent you from going straight if you wanted, although there is the usual collection of debris and rocks and gunk in the middle of the intersection and you'd run over that if you tried to go straight.
Incidentally, I was rather annoyed when I tried to turn left from Lee Highway (US-29) onto the ramp to the southbound Express Lanes because the traffic lights at that intersection were all on flash (flashing yellow for thru traffic on 29, flashing red for traffic exiting the Beltway, flashing red arrow for me turning left from westbound 29 to the ramp). Of course traffic going the other way was heavy and it took forever to make the turn. Anyone know if this is a normal thing during off-peak hours? I suppose if the Express Lanes traffic is as light as the media keep saying, it makes sense to favor US-29 traffic, but it seems like they could then just put the light on a trip during off-peak times (recognizing that at peak times keeping the lights on 29 synchronized is more important).
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 03, 2012, 11:20:28 AM
BTW, forgot to mention: We were coming back from the 9:30 Club late last night (after midnight) and used the southbound general lanes of I-395 because the HOV was running inbound. As we went around Exit 1C to the Outer Loop I noticed that one last sign has been uncovered on the Beltway. It's located just after the left exit from the Outer Loop to the inbound HOV and it's for the single-lane connection cpzilliacus and I were discussing earlier, the one where my wife starts yelling at me in the final video I posted from the lanes' first day of operation. What's odd about the sign is its design: It has the white "RESTRICTED LANES" banner at the top and then refers to I-95 North/I-495 East towards Baltimore, with a left-exit arrow.
....
If I can get a picture this afternoon I will.
Here's a picture of the sign referenced above. As I said before, it's a rather odd sign for several reasons I mentioned already, but an additional one is that there is no previous sign corresponding to this one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FMiscellanousDecember2012017.jpg&hash=9d88b527e3a43073d97ea011de1c3257a28f7dc2)
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 26, 2012, 04:16:10 PM
....
On the return trip I wanted to go to Springfield so I took the HOV ramp to southbound I-95. Interesting drive in this direction (I had previously used it from northbound I-95 to the Inner Loop). The exit from the Outer Loop feels like it's plunging down into a cave or a canyon as it leaves the Beltway to the left. The ramp has a bit of a roller-coaster feel to it, IMO, and this just accentuates it. ....
Here's the first portion of that ramp (click to play):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_MiscellanousDecember2012024_zps309c7e2e.jpg&hash=633b62efacd0a507c991b7c13731ee15a5587330) (http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/?action=view¤t=MiscellanousDecember2012024_zps309c7e2e.mp4)
Incidentally, the ramp that descends to my left is the I-395 southbound HOV ramp to the Inner Loop. It must not get much traffic yet because when I drove on it earlier today there were around a hundred birds all sitting in the roadway that took to the air in a panic as I drove through. Weird experience!
Speaking of which....I noticed that the advance signs over the southbound HOV prior to the Turkeycock ramps have been revised. See picture below from AARoads.com. The "I-95 NORTH 495" line has been greened-out on those signs, which makes sense because now there's no need to exit there to get to the Beltway. In a few years, of course, the incentive for exiting might return when HO/T begins on Shirley Highway south of Turkeycock.
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia395/i-395_sb_exit_003b_04.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 03, 2012, 04:07:49 PM
I finally have an answer to this question. Took the Braddock exit from the Express Lanes today to see what was allowed. The ramp ends at a traffic light on Braddock and there are two lanes marked left-only and right-only. So legally you have to turn.
Is this actually true, in the absence of a 'no straight' sign? I've seen many surface intersections where new construction changed a T into a cross, but the arrows were not updated.
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2012, 06:09:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 03, 2012, 04:07:49 PM
I finally have an answer to this question. Took the Braddock exit from the Express Lanes today to see what was allowed. The ramp ends at a traffic light on Braddock and there are two lanes marked left-only and right-only. So legally you have to turn.
Is this actually true, in the absence of a 'no straight' sign? I've seen many surface intersections where new construction changed a T into a cross, but the arrows were not updated.
Pavement markings are considered regulatory. If it's MUTCD compliant, I'd abide by it.
Quote from: Steve on December 03, 2012, 06:18:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2012, 06:09:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 03, 2012, 04:07:49 PM
I finally have an answer to this question. Took the Braddock exit from the Express Lanes today to see what was allowed. The ramp ends at a traffic light on Braddock and there are two lanes marked left-only and right-only. So legally you have to turn.
Is this actually true, in the absence of a 'no straight' sign? I've seen many surface intersections where new construction changed a T into a cross, but the arrows were not updated.
Pavement markings are considered regulatory. If it's MUTCD compliant, I'd abide by it.
Wasn't just pavement markings, either: The traffic lights had the "[left arrow]-only" and "[right arrow]-only" signs next to them, so I'd consider those pretty conclusive. I didn't post a picture of the signs because it didn't come out due to the afternoon lighting.
Thanks for posting what the top of that ramp looks like.
Incidentally, the US 29 stoplights were not flashing when I drove by at 5:40 this morning...
Mapmikey
Tried out the Inner Loop HO/T Lanes mid-day Monday. Very empty and only $1.65, even though there was a slowdown in the main lanes north of Braddock Rd due to roadwork. A bit weird having nothing but a double-white line and bollards separating the HO/T lanes and main lanes for the most part...someone asked on Facebook a few weeks ago why they didn't just put in a permanent barrier. Reason being is that modern standards would require full shoulders on both sides of the barrier, requiring a lot more space...about 20ft (give or take a few) on each side of the Beltway.
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2012, 09:05:38 AM
Tried out the Inner Loop HO/T Lanes mid-day Monday. Very empty and only $1.65, even though there was a slowdown in the main lanes north of Braddock Rd due to roadwork. A bit weird having nothing but a double-white line and bollards separating the HO/T lanes and main lanes for the most part...someone asked on Facebook a few weeks ago why they didn't just put in a permanent barrier. Reason being is that modern standards would require full shoulders on both sides of the barrier, requiring a lot more space...about 20ft (give or take a few) on each side of the Beltway.
I've seen various reports stating that the State Police favored the bollards for the additional reason that in the event of a severe accident that backs up the Beltway, emergency vehicles could use the Express Lanes and then have the bollards removed to let them get to the scene.
Installing new markings on the backtop of the Inner Loop approaching the entrance to the HOV/Toll lanes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01503.jpg&hash=ad96843640d56f1acccae9fc1e47fca14743bf18)
^^^^ Interesting to see them using the words. I kind of thought they were going to use the E-ZPass logo like they did on the approaches to the main toll plaza on the Dulles Toll Road. Either way, though, I've noticed way fewer instances of last-minute lane changes in the past week or so.
Dr. Gridlock does an online discussion most Mondays and while I didn't participate this week, I saw the transcript later and I noticed that some people were complaining that the signs for the Express Lanes say "E-ZPass" but do not use the word "Toll" anywhere. The MUTCD renderings for "Priced Managed Lane" signs don't envision the word "Toll" because they want the logo for the ETC system used instead, but of course the person asking the question has probably never heard of the MUTCD. What I find amusing is the idea that (a) those numbers preceded by dollar signs are apparently insufficient to tell this person that there's a toll and (b) anyone living anywhere from Virginia (except maybe the far southwestern extremes) to Massachusetts would not know what "E-ZPass" is. (Yeah, I know New Hampshire and Maine have E-ZPass facilities, but in each case it's one facility in a small part of the state, so people living at the other end of the state might not care enough to learn about it.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 06, 2012, 09:16:00 AM
^^^^ Interesting to see them using the words. I kind of thought they were going to use the E-ZPass logo like they did on the approaches to the main toll plaza on the Dulles Toll Road. Either way, though, I've noticed way fewer instances of last-minute lane changes in the past week or so.
I took that image while driving with my "real" camera (not the smartphone), after having passed the work party once (and not had my camera at the ready). Since I had the time, I exited at Va. 620 (Braddock Road), went back to Va. 613 (S. Van Dorn Street), turned around and was able to snap that image.
But when I tried to change lanes to get out of the approach to the HOV/Toll lanes to exit at Va. 620, there was an idiot in the left "free" lane that tried to prevent me from changing lanes - after I signaled a lane change, he sped-up to get in my blind spot and then honked his horn (maybe it was the ghost of Dr. Nestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor) - looked like an old white-haired man behind the wheel). So I can understand that some people may have a hard time getting out of those lanes, if that is not where they want to be.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 06, 2012, 09:16:00 AM
Dr. Gridlock does an online discussion most Mondays and while I didn't participate this week, I saw the transcript later and I noticed that some people were complaining that the signs for the Express Lanes say "E-ZPass" but do not use the word "Toll" anywhere. The MUTCD renderings for "Priced Managed Lane" signs don't envision the word "Toll" because they want the logo for the ETC system used instead, but of course the person asking the question has probably never heard of the MUTCD. What I find amusing is the idea that (a) those numbers preceded by dollar signs are apparently insufficient to tell this person that there's a toll and (b) anyone living anywhere from Virginia (except maybe the far southwestern extremes) to Massachusetts would not know what "E-ZPass" is. (Yeah, I know New Hampshire and Maine have E-ZPass facilities, but in each case it's one facility in a small part of the state, so people living at the other end of the state might not care enough to learn about it.)
I can understand that there are drivers from place where E-ZPass is not widely known (areas of Virginia along the I-81 corridor, and parts of Southside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southside_%28Virginia%29) that are not too close to Richmond, for example), but
anyone that has driven on the Dulles Toll Road/Greenway or across the Chesapeake Bay or to or through Baltimore, Philadelphia, most of New Jersey and large areas of metropolitan New York
really ought to understand what E-ZPass means.
Though
all of the entrances to Md. 200 have a TOLL banner above the 200 shield, in addition to the E-ZPass logo.
Still, as you say above, the prices
should convey a message.
Regarding Maine and New Hampshire, I believe the only toll facility in Maine is the Turnpike - and all of the toll roads in New Hampshire are in the southern part of the state (except for the private toll road that leads to the crest of Mount Washington).
But most of the population is in or near the areas served by the toll roads.
I have driven I-95 all the way to the Canadian border at Houlton, and north of Bangor, it gets
very desolate.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 06, 2012, 11:08:26 AM
....
Though all of the entrances to Md. 200 have a TOLL banner above the 200 shield, in addition to the E-ZPass logo.
....
The Intercounty Connector is arguably different from Virginia's HO/T or "Express Lanes," though, because it's entirely a toll road and so it's subject to different MUTCD provisions.
As I typed this post I opened up another browser tab to look at Part 2G of the MUTCD where it talks about "Priced Managed Lanes." Indeed my recollection was correct–the sample signs shown there do NOT use the word "Toll" anywhere except in the mock logo for the ETC system (they show a fictitious logo very similar to E-ZPass but called "TollPass"). If the people building the lanes are attempting strict adherence to the MUTCD guidelines, then the word "Toll" wouldn't appear. Virginia's signs aren't quite the same as what the Manual shows because of the use of the VMS system to show three destinations and toll rates, rather than having the destinations appear in a "standard" BGS format with small VMS panels next to them showing the toll. But I suspect to the extent some kind of variance was permitted it had to be as limited a variance as possible.
Florida's signs for "SunPass Only" lanes usually have a "Prepaid Tolls Only" banner. I've always found it to be slightly odd but nonetheless effective.
To some extent I think signs with an ETC logo should convey a message to drivers that if you don't know what "E-ZPass" or "SunPass" means, don't go into that lane. It's sort of like back in the 1980s when the first HAZMAT signs appeared on the Beltway and said "HAZMAT CARRIERS RIGHT 2 LANES ONLY." I was in my teens and I remember asking my father what that meant and he said it referred to hazardous materials; I replied, "Then they should say that so people know what it means." His reply made a lot of sense: "The people at whom that sign is aimed know what it means and it doesn't really matter for everyone else." Other people must have wondered too, though, because the signs were amended to say "HAZMAT TRUCKS."
Of course, "E-ZPass Only" is a little different because it DOES matter for everyone.
(Edited to fix a misspelling)
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 06, 2012, 09:16:00 AM(Yeah, I know New Hampshire and Maine have E-ZPass facilities, but in each case it's one facility in a small part of the state, so people living at the other end of the state might not care enough to learn about it.)
Just pointing out, neither of those are true. New Hampshire has the Spaulding (NH 16), Blue Star (I-95), and Everett (US 3) Turnpikes, which total 617 lane miles and pass through all the state's major cities, including Nashua, Manchester, Concord, and Portsmouth. Maine has the Maine Turnpike, which is 101 miles long and stretches from York almost to Augusta, which is exactly a third of the way across the state, but connects to all the significant cities except Bangor. I've noticed in both of those states the toll roads are pretty well-known and large percentages of the population have a transponder.
Re: the HOT lanes, no one from Virginia or Maryland should have any issue understanding that "E-Z Pass Express" means tolled. Especially with all the years of public outreach, the fact that the area has numerous other toll roads, and the fact that the signs display prices! What do they think those are, the approximate amount of gas you'd consume to get there? Although given the stupid comments I've read from people over the course of the HOT lane construction it really shouldn't surprise me...
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 06, 2012, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 06, 2012, 09:16:00 AM(Yeah, I know New Hampshire and Maine have E-ZPass facilities, but in each case it's one facility in a small part of the state, so people living at the other end of the state might not care enough to learn about it.)
Just pointing out, neither of those are true. New Hampshire has the Spaulding (NH 16), Blue Star (I-95), and Everett (US 3) Turnpikes, which total 617 lane miles and pass through all the state's major cities, including Nashua, Manchester, Concord, and Portsmouth. Maine has the Maine Turnpike, which is 101 miles long and stretches from York almost to Augusta, which is exactly a third of the way across the state, but connects to all the significant cities except Bangor. I've noticed in both of those states the toll roads are pretty well-known and large percentages of the population have a transponder.
....
Sure, but I'm talking relative to the size of the whole state. New Hampshire's toll roads are all down in the southeastern part of the state and Maine's is down in the south (although certainly I recognize that most of northern Maine is just a ton of empty forest). You're correct that New Hampshire has three rather than one and that was just sloppy writing on my part, but I don't think it changes my overall point that the toll roads in those two states represent a small portion of the overall highway system. If you live up in Dixville Notch or Fort Kent or Presque Isle, the electronic toll collection issue is largely irrelevant. That's all I was saying–there may be people in the far portions of those states that are unfamiliar with E-ZPass because they have no reason to be familiar with it.
I do think you make a good point about the stupid comments people make. I think I've seldom seen as much misinformation spewed by blog commenters and the like as I have in conjunction with the HO/T project. Then when you offer provable facts to correct them it does no good whatsoever. They simply don't want to hear it. At some point you just have to ignore the stupeys.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 06, 2012, 12:04:04 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 06, 2012, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 06, 2012, 09:16:00 AM(Yeah, I know New Hampshire and Maine have E-ZPass facilities, but in each case it's one facility in a small part of the state, so people living at the other end of the state might not care enough to learn about it.)
Just pointing out, neither of those are true. New Hampshire has the Spaulding (NH 16), Blue Star (I-95), and Everett (US 3) Turnpikes, which total 617 lane miles and pass through all the state's major cities, including Nashua, Manchester, Concord, and Portsmouth. Maine has the Maine Turnpike, which is 101 miles long and stretches from York almost to Augusta, which is exactly a third of the way across the state, but connects to all the significant cities except Bangor. I've noticed in both of those states the toll roads are pretty well-known and large percentages of the population have a transponder.
....
Sure, but I'm talking relative to the size of the whole state. New Hampshire's toll roads are all down in the southeastern part of the state and Maine's is down in the south (although certainly I recognize that most of northern Maine is just a ton of empty forest). You're correct that New Hampshire has three rather than one and that was just sloppy writing on my part, but I don't think it changes my overall point that the toll roads in those two states represent a small portion of the overall highway system. If you live up in Dixville Notch or Fort Kent or Presque Isle, the electronic toll collection issue is largely irrelevant. That's all I was saying–there may be people in the far portions of those states that are unfamiliar with E-ZPass because they have no reason to be familiar with it.
Oh no it doesn't change your point at all, I just felt like pointing out that the majority of the population of both of those states lives near their toll roads, and the states are so small anyway that no one's more than an hour or two's drive from a toll road, so, as applies to the whole of New England, everything's smaller and people get around a lot more.
A DC friend of mine tweeted this last night. My photos are at home, but I believe he's right...
Saw someone backing up from getting on the 495 Express Lanes this weekend. One thing I noted: It never says TOLL on any of the signs.
Quote from: froggie on December 11, 2012, 07:26:22 AM
A DC friend of mine tweeted this last night. My photos are at home, but I believe he's right...
Saw someone backing up from getting on the 495 Express Lanes this weekend. One thing I noted: It never says TOLL on any of the signs.
That is what we were just discussing in the last several posts. Your friend is correct, none of them say TOLL. As I noted before, if you look at the MUTCD, their sign renderings for "priced managed lanes" do not use that word anywhere either–their theory is apparently that the ETC system's logo (or "pictograph" as they call it) is sufficient to serve this purpose. I tend to think the sign showing dollar amounts should notify drivers that it's tolled, but maybe the idea of hitting people over the head with obvious information really IS that ingrained in the American way.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 11, 2012, 07:54:31 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 11, 2012, 07:26:22 AM
A DC friend of mine tweeted this last night. My photos are at home, but I believe he's right...
Saw someone backing up from getting on the 495 Express Lanes this weekend. One thing I noted: It never says TOLL on any of the signs.
That is what we were just discussing in the last several posts. Your friend is correct, none of them say TOLL. As I noted before, if you look at the MUTCD, their sign renderings for "priced managed lanes" do not use that word anywhere either–their theory is apparently that the ETC system's logo (or "pictograph" as they call it) is sufficient to serve this purpose. I tend to think the sign showing dollar amounts should notify drivers that it's tolled, but maybe the idea of hitting people over the head with obvious information really IS that ingrained in the American way.
At some entrances to toll roads or toll crossings, the word
TOLL is not always explicitly there (just a logo or "pictograph" for the toll road), and it
probably should be (not because the MUTCD says so, but because that is what drivers seem to expect). Virginia up to now, has usually had a
TOLL banner informing drivers that they are entering a tolled road or tolled crossing (I recall that was how the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was signed before it was detolled).
Drove the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes for the first time today with the E-ZPass Flex transponder in HOV mode.
A red signal light comes on on the gantries as the vehicle passes under them if the transponder is in HOV mode. It's not really possible to see this light when there is ambient natural light, but in the dark, it can be seen in the rear-view mirrors.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2012, 11:16:10 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 11, 2012, 07:54:31 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 11, 2012, 07:26:22 AM
A DC friend of mine tweeted this last night. My photos are at home, but I believe he's right...
Saw someone backing up from getting on the 495 Express Lanes this weekend. One thing I noted: It never says TOLL on any of the signs.
That is what we were just discussing in the last several posts. Your friend is correct, none of them say TOLL. As I noted before, if you look at the MUTCD, their sign renderings for "priced managed lanes" do not use that word anywhere either–their theory is apparently that the ETC system's logo (or "pictograph" as they call it) is sufficient to serve this purpose. I tend to think the sign showing dollar amounts should notify drivers that it's tolled, but maybe the idea of hitting people over the head with obvious information really IS that ingrained in the American way.
At some entrances to toll roads or toll crossings, the word TOLL is not always explicitly there (just a logo or "pictograph" for the toll road), and it probably should be (not because the MUTCD says so, but because that is what drivers seem to expect). Virginia up to now, has usually had a TOLL banner informing drivers that they are entering a tolled road or tolled crossing (I recall that was how the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was signed before it was detolled).
I suspect–but cannot confirm for certain–that the key distinction here is that the toll applies to just those particular lanes, not the entire road. I agree with you that this is probably an example where the MUTCD ought to be ignored.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2012, 11:19:20 AM
Drove the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes for the first time today with the E-ZPass Flex transponder in HOV mode.
A red signal light comes on on the gantries as the vehicle passes under them if the transponder is in HOV mode. It's not really possible to see this light when there is ambient natural light, but in the dark, it can be seen in the rear-view mirrors.
Now that is interesting. We're not getting a Flex, so I'll never experience this myself. Interesting that none of the media have ever mentioned this, seeing as how one of the top questions about the lanes is "how do they know you're an HOV?"
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 11, 2012, 11:19:51 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2012, 11:19:20 AM
Drove the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes for the first time today with the E-ZPass Flex transponder in HOV mode.
A red signal light comes on on the gantries as the vehicle passes under them if the transponder is in HOV mode. It's not really possible to see this light when there is ambient natural light, but in the dark, it can be seen in the rear-view mirrors.
Now that is interesting. We're not getting a Flex, so I'll never experience this myself. Interesting that none of the media have ever mentioned this, seeing as how one of the top questions about the lanes is "how do they know you're an HOV?"
We saw several VSP trooper cars sitting next to the gantries in the small "pull-off" areas presumably watching for HOVs (and HOV violators), but not on the side we were running.
Since I was driving my truck, which has pretty heavy factory tint on the rear windows, I was curious if they would stop me to check the back seat (we did have the required three persons).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2012, 11:34:21 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 11, 2012, 11:19:51 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2012, 11:19:20 AM
Drove the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes for the first time today with the E-ZPass Flex transponder in HOV mode.
A red signal light comes on on the gantries as the vehicle passes under them if the transponder is in HOV mode. It's not really possible to see this light when there is ambient natural light, but in the dark, it can be seen in the rear-view mirrors.
Now that is interesting. We're not getting a Flex, so I'll never experience this myself. Interesting that none of the media have ever mentioned this, seeing as how one of the top questions about the lanes is "how do they know you're an HOV?"
We saw several VSP trooper cars sitting next to the gantries in the small "pull-off" areas presumably watching for HOVs (and HOV violators), but not on the side we were running.
Since I was driving my truck, which has pretty heavy factory tint on the rear windows, I was curious if they would stop me to check the back seat (we did have the required three persons).
The two places where I've seen cops were at the Inner Loop gantry just north of US-29 and south of I-66 and at both gantries between the W&OD and Idylwood overpasses. I assume it was HOV enforcement as well, but every time I've seen them I've slowed from about 65 mph to about 60 mph just in case.
Quote from: froggie on December 11, 2012, 07:26:22 AM
A DC friend of mine tweeted this last night. My photos are at home, but I believe he's right...
Saw someone backing up from getting on the 495 Express Lanes this weekend. One thing I noted: It never says TOLL on any of the signs.
Can't speak for all the interchanges but before each entrance at the ends of the Express Lanes you have to pass the white signs that DO say "toll" and "no toll" for the two kinds of EZ-pass.
All the rest of the signs have the EZ-pass logo. So my logic is that if you have an EZ-pass you know what it would be for (tolls!) or you don't have one and don't know what they are for - so why would you get in the lanes marked EZ-pass if you don't have one/know what it is?
I also don't see how all those signs with $amounts on them don't register with people that this means a toll is coming...
Incidentally the red lights at the gantries are visible from the main lanes when they flash.
Mapmikey
Here another video of the HOT lanes, this time going southbound from VA-267 to the Springfield interchange.
He actually entered one exit north of 267 at VA-193. The thing I noticed was the tractor-trailer that was in the lanes illegally. Wonder if the truck driver got pulled over. I've seen at least one truck stopped by the police.
Channel 4's Adam Tuss reports about a woman who used the 495 Express Lanes 16 times without an E-ZPass and received a bill for $225.00 (http://www.nbcwashington.com/traffic/transit/Driver-Slapped-With-225-Bill-After-Using-495-Express-Lanes-183239002.html). (Report includes video.)
Sounds like she got away with it, though, as the report says they "worked away with her to wipe away the high service fees." The $12.50 charge when they send you a bill is per trip, it seems, not per invoice.
I had my first rush-hour experience with the new lanes at 4:30 this afternoon. Went from Falls Church (near Shrevewood Elementary) to Kingstowne, a trip that usually took 45 minutes to an hour before. Took me 20 minutes door-to-door tonight for a toll of $1.05 and I was doing 70 mph while the traffic in the general lanes was stopped. I was really quite surprised to see the toll so low, and there were in fact quite a few more vehicles in the Express Lanes than I've seen in the past (but still by no means crowded–had I wanted to go a whole lot faster, I could have quite easily). Maybe people are finally figuring it out.
Frankly I've been really surprised that the toll rates have been as low as they've been.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 13, 2012, 05:51:29 PM
I had my first rush-hour experience with the new lanes at 4:30 this afternoon. Went from Falls Church (near Shrevewood Elementary) to Kingstowne, a trip that usually took 45 minutes to an hour before. Took me 20 minutes door-to-door tonight for a toll of $1.05 and I was doing 70 mph while the traffic in the general lanes was stopped.
A worthwhile investment of a buck and change, if you ask me. I'd gladly pay double or even triple that to avoid gridlock and save that much time.
Google maps had updated the satellite imagery of Capital Beltway and they show the HOT lanes
http://goo.gl/maps/P1WxI
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 13, 2012, 10:03:16 AM
Channel 4's Adam Tuss reports about a woman who used the 495 Express Lanes 16 times without an E-ZPass and received a bill for $225.00 (http://www.nbcwashington.com/traffic/transit/Driver-Slapped-With-225-Bill-After-Using-495-Express-Lanes-183239002.html). (Report includes video.)
Sounds like she got away with it, though, as the report says they "worked away with her to wipe away the high service fees." The $12.50 charge when they send you a bill is per trip, it seems, not per invoice.
Some roads, like the Florida Turnpike near Miami, are Video Tolling roads. For every 30 day period or thereabouts, they'll mail you a bill with all your toll charges, and one service fee (if you don't have a transponder).
Other roads, such as most EZ Pass roads including the 495 HOT lanes, are "EZ Pass Only" roads. Every infraction results in a fine.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 04, 2012, 01:36:25 PM
Quote from: Steve on December 03, 2012, 06:18:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2012, 06:09:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 03, 2012, 04:07:49 PM
I finally have an answer to this question. Took the Braddock exit from the Express Lanes today to see what was allowed. The ramp ends at a traffic light on Braddock and there are two lanes marked left-only and right-only. So legally you have to turn.
Is this actually true, in the absence of a 'no straight' sign? I've seen many surface intersections where new construction changed a T into a cross, but the arrows were not updated.
Pavement markings are considered regulatory. If it's MUTCD compliant, I'd abide by it.
Wasn't just pavement markings, either: The traffic lights had the "[left arrow]-only" and "[right arrow]-only" signs next to them, so I'd consider those pretty conclusive. I didn't post a picture of the signs because it didn't come out due to the afternoon lighting.
Peculiar update regarding my exploratory trip on the Braddock ramp mentioned above. I made that trip on December 3 and went from US-29 (Lee Highway) to Braddock in the Express Lanes, exited to observe the traffic light configuration, made a left turn onto Braddock to comply with the left-turn/right-turn only signs, then went to Ravensworth Road and looped around to the right to make a U-turn. Got back on the Beltway and then took the new HOV ramp to I-95.
Odd thing is, my E-ZPass has never been billed for it! The other three trips that day all show up, but not this one. I wonder if it's because the system sees that I didn't go through the gantry at Braddock Road but did go through the HOV ramp gantry and so it doesn't know what happened or how to bill it.
Thought I'd pass this along as an oddity that, in theory, might allow you to cheap out on some of the toll rate, although frankly I think the savings would be so minimal as not to be worth the trouble. (As I type this post you'd save 20¢.)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2012, 08:31:15 AM
Some roads, like the Florida Turnpike near Miami, are Video Tolling roads. For every 30 day period or thereabouts, they'll mail you a bill with all your toll charges, and one service fee (if you don't have a transponder).
I never got mailed a bill. I wonder if they only bill once the debt is over a certain amount.
Quote from: Steve on December 18, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2012, 08:31:15 AM
Some roads, like the Florida Turnpike near Miami, are Video Tolling roads. For every 30 day period or thereabouts, they'll mail you a bill with all your toll charges, and one service fee (if you don't have a transponder).
I never got mailed a bill. I wonder if they only bill once the debt is over a certain amount.
My debt was $3.00 (3, $1 tolls) plus a $2.50 service charge. I received my bill at least 45 days after my trip.
Quote from: Steve on December 18, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2012, 08:31:15 AM
Some roads, like the Florida Turnpike near Miami, are Video Tolling roads. For every 30 day period or thereabouts, they'll mail you a bill with all your toll charges, and one service fee (if you don't have a transponder).
I never got mailed a bill. I wonder if they only bill once the debt is over a certain amount.
Or maybe they don't bill travelers from distant states?
Quote from: Steve on December 18, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2012, 08:31:15 AM
Some roads, like the Florida Turnpike near Miami, are Video Tolling roads. For every 30 day period or thereabouts, they'll mail you a bill with all your toll charges, and one service fee (if you don't have a transponder).
I never got mailed a bill. I wonder if they only bill once the debt is over a certain amount.
That is true for many toll authorities. A toll violation that comes with a $25 fee allows them to go after anyone and everyone. But for all electronic tolling with only a minimal toll processing fee charged, the toll authorities don't have the resources to try to collect a $2 toll from someone who may never visit the state again. But once they realize that a certain out of state car is frequently using their toll roads for "free", they will minimize their losses by looking up the licence plate with the out of state DMV and charging for those tolls.
I believe NTTA in Texas does not have agreements in place with any other state DOT, and will only look to collect tolls from out of state drivers once the tab is over $100. Can't remember where I read that though, but it was when I was doing research on the topic back in early 2011.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2012, 10:17:57 AM
Quote from: Steve on December 18, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2012, 08:31:15 AM
Some roads, like the Florida Turnpike near Miami, are Video Tolling roads. For every 30 day period or thereabouts, they'll mail you a bill with all your toll charges, and one service fee (if you don't have a transponder).
I never got mailed a bill. I wonder if they only bill once the debt is over a certain amount.
Or maybe they don't bill travelers from distant states?
I believe we are both from NJ, and I got a bill.
Maybe it's because they didn't like me.
OR...maybe, it's because they knew I would pay it...and he would cheap out and ignore it. Yeah...yeah...that's the reason why...because I'm an honest guy!!! :bigass:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2012, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2012, 10:17:57 AM
Quote from: Steve on December 18, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2012, 08:31:15 AM
Some roads, like the Florida Turnpike near Miami, are Video Tolling roads. For every 30 day period or thereabouts, they'll mail you a bill with all your toll charges, and one service fee (if you don't have a transponder).
I never got mailed a bill. I wonder if they only bill once the debt is over a certain amount.
Or maybe they don't bill travelers from distant states?
I believe we are both from NJ, and I got a bill.
Maybe it's because they didn't like me.
OR...maybe, it's because they knew I would pay it...and he would cheap out and ignore it. Yeah...yeah...that's the reason why...because I'm an honest guy!!! :bigass:
Hey, stop making fun of my Judaism :D
D.C. Examiner: Fairfax residents seething over I-95 express lanes ramp (http://washingtonexaminer.com/fairfax-residents-seething-over-i-95-express-lanes-ramp/article/2516681)
QuoteFairfax County residents are seething over Virginia's proposal to build a ramp in their neighborhood as part of the Interstate 95 express lanes.
Quote"We're scared; we're scandalized; we're indignant that [the Virginia Department of Transportation] would continue marching forward to stay on their building schedule when in fact there are massive implications for public health here," said Mary Hasty, spokeswoman for the Concerned Residents of Landmark, a group opposing the ramp at the endpoint of the I-95 express lanes near Edsall Road.
QuoteThe special lanes,which officials say will give a congestion-free ride to toll payers or carpoolers, were earlier planned to end in Arlington, but that county filed suit to block the lanes in 2009, worried they would cause pollution. The suit forced the lanes to stop short of the traffic-clogged area around the Pentagon and end near Edsall Road instead, angering residents there.
Dr. Gridlock of the Washington Post on the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes: Drivers offer tips for users, and operators, of Beltway Express Lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/drivers-offer-tips-for-users-and-operators-of-beltway-express-lanes/2013/01/04/f3dd49c8-55f6-11e2-a613-ec8d394535c6_story.html)
QuoteYou asked for input from drivers as to how they decide to use the new high-occupancy toll lanes on the Capital Beltway. I have been using them morning and evening and find that they cut at least a half-hour off my 28-mile commute.
QuoteThat's an hour a day that I can use productively! As noted by Gabriel Goldberg, there isn't any way to tell in advance whether the toll lanes will make a difference for a given trip. One Friday last month, they were no better than the free lanes. But, on average, the HOT lanes avoid the normal rush-hour backups and are worth it, given the current relatively modest tolls.
I know the fellow who wrote the lead letter in that column. Very sensible guy and his thoughts there are no exception.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2013, 08:40:28 AM
I know the fellow who wrote the lead letter in that column. Very sensible guy and his thoughts there are no exception.
In the small world department, I am pretty sure I know Gabe Goldberg (have not seen him for many years) from my mainframe computer days. He works for one of the "old time" high-tech employers at Tysons Corner (or at least he used to).
According to the radio, there was a wreck in the Inner Loop general-purpose lanes near 236 this morning. I have no idea how many people opted for the Express Lanes to bypass it, but I see the toll to drive the full distance from Springfield was $3.55 as of 8:00 (to Westpark was $3.10 and to I-66 was $2.40). Looks like they're starting to use the variable-tolling system and I'm interested in seeing how well it works. I was kind of hoping Dr. Gridlock or Adam Tuss might mention it, but so far they haven't.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2013, 09:59:25 AM
According to the radio, there was a wreck in the Inner Loop general-purpose lanes near 236 this morning. I have no idea how many people opted for the Express Lanes to bypass it, but I see the toll to drive the full distance from Springfield was $3.55 as of 8:00 (to Westpark was $3.10 and to I-66 was $2.40). Looks like they're starting to use the variable-tolling system and I'm interested in seeing how well it works. I was kind of hoping Dr. Gridlock or Adam Tuss might mention it, but so far they haven't.
That toll "sounds right" to me.
Washington Post: Fairfax residents balk at I-95 express lanes ramp (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fairfax-residents-balk-at-i-95-express-lanes-ramp/2013/01/07/979c0d2c-4a1e-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html)
QuoteConstruction is underway on the Interstate 95 express lanes, with the new high-occupancy toll road expected to open late next year. But residents living at the northernmost point of the planned lanes are unhappy with the congestion and pollution they say the project will bring.
QuoteThe express lanes will begin on I-95 in Stafford County and end between Edsall Road and Duke Street on Interstate 395 in Fairfax County, so a ramp must be built to carry vehicles from the new lanes to the regular roadway. That new ramp will be in a neighborhood just west of the Alexandria city line, much to the dismay of residents.
Someone from the DOT should direct those residents to the Arlington County government and tell them "Hey, its THEIR fault! Blame them for blocking the lanes north of there."
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 08, 2013, 09:38:54 PM
Someone from the DOT should direct those residents to the Arlington County government and tell them "Hey, its THEIR fault! Blame them for blocking the lanes north of there."
It's been suggested a few times in the comments for this article.
Disagree. The proposed ramp has long been the "missing movement" at Turkeycock. It's crazy that you can enter the southbound HOV lanes there but can't exit northbound.
Quote from: froggie on January 10, 2013, 11:05:56 AM
Disagree. The proposed ramp has long been the "missing movement" at Turkeycock. It's crazy that you can enter the southbound HOV lanes there but can't exit northbound.
Back when they first built the HOV facility it wasn't really that big of a deal because the reversible carriageway ended just to the south of Springfield. The primary bottleneck in that area was always the southbound general-purpose carriageway due to all the weaving between the Beltway and the Route 644 interchange. The problem was never anywhere nearly as bad in the northbound direction. But once they extended the HOV facility south to Dumfries it became a more serious omission, especially prior to the Springfield Interchange reconstruction.
I agree with you that the ramp should have been constructed regardless of whether the HO/T system had been run all the way up to the Pentagon. I do foresee a couple of problems with it, though, the main one being that it will fly over the northbound general-purpose lanes so traffic enters on the right. The reason that's a problem is that it's a confined area with the rather busy Landmark exit coming up immediately afterwards–essentially, it creates a new weave area where HO/T-to-local traffic pushes left just as local-to-Landmark traffic pushes right. Of course it would also be a problem to have the ramp enter on the left, and I'm not pretending to know what the ideal solution would be.
I certainly understand why the people in Landmark Mews (the very large, very nice, and very expensive townhouses overlooking I-395 next to this project) are upset, although it's funny that it's the people in Overlook (located further away from I-395) who are making the noise. But I can't say I'm entirely sympathetic. One rule of thumb I've always kept in mind is that it's a bad idea to buy property too close to an arterial route or a major highway, simply because of the risk of disruption to your property (whether via eminent domain, increased noise, pollution, whatever) if road expansion or reconfiguration is ever needed. It's simply too much of a roll of the dice, and I think it's extremely unreasonable to argue that you didn't expect them to build a new ramp, or otherwise reconfigure the road, when you bought your house. Everyone knows roads get widened and other improvements get made.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2013, 11:25:17 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 10, 2013, 11:05:56 AM
Disagree. The proposed ramp has long been the "missing movement" at Turkeycock. It's crazy that you can enter the southbound HOV lanes there but can't exit northbound.
Back when they first built the HOV facility it wasn't really that big of a deal because the reversible carriageway ended just to the south of Springfield. The primary bottleneck in that area was always the southbound general-purpose carriageway due to all the weaving between the Beltway and the Route 644 interchange. The problem was never anywhere nearly as bad in the northbound direction. But once they extended the HOV facility south to Dumfries it became a more serious omission, especially prior to the Springfield Interchange reconstruction.
This is absolutely correct. And for many years leading up to the completion of the Springfield Interchange,southbound non-HOV traffic was permitted to enter the express lanes at Turkeycock Run, but they had to exit at Va. 644 (Old Keene Mill Road) westbound - even during the HOV-3 restricted period, 3:30 to 6:00 since about 1990.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2013, 11:25:17 AM
I agree with you that the ramp should have been constructed regardless of whether the HO/T system had been run all the way up to the Pentagon. I do foresee a couple of problems with it, though, the main one being that it will fly over the northbound general-purpose lanes so traffic enters on the right. The reason that's a problem is that it's a confined area with the rather busy Landmark exit coming up immediately afterwards–essentially, it creates a new weave area where HO/T-to-local traffic pushes left just as local-to-Landmark traffic pushes right. Of course it would also be a problem to have the ramp enter on the left, and I'm not pretending to know what the ideal solution would be.
Though the northbound conventional (non-HOV) lanes are always badly congested in the mornings between Va. 648 (Edsall Road) and Va. 236 (Duke Street) anyway. I personally am glad that the ramp will bring the exiting traffic in on the right.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2013, 11:25:17 AM
I certainly understand why the people in Landmark Mews (the very large, very nice, and very expensive townhouses overlooking I-395 next to this project) are upset, although it's funny that it's the people in Overlook (located further away from I-395) who are making the noise. But I can't say I'm entirely sympathetic. One rule of thumb I've always kept in mind is that it's a bad idea to buy property too close to an arterial route or a major highway, simply because of the risk of disruption to your property (whether via eminent domain, increased noise, pollution, whatever) if road expansion or reconfiguration is ever needed. It's simply too much of a roll of the dice, and I think it's extremely unreasonable to argue that you didn't expect them to build a new ramp, or otherwise reconfigure the road, when you bought your house. Everyone knows roads get widened and other improvements get made.
Hey, people need to think of what is around them
before they purchase real estate. That includes planned improvements, too.
My community in Montgomery County was next to a very crash-prone at-grade intersection (U.S. 29 and Briggs Chaney Road), and it was common knowledge that the state wanted to replace that intersection with a grade-separated interchange. So we were not especially shocked when the state wanted to condemn some of our common property for that project, though they low-balled us on the offer. But I suggested to our Board of Directors (and they agreed) that we hire a competent attorney well-versed in planning and zoning matters, and we did. That attorney was able to show that the Maryland State Highway Administration really owed us over $450,000 instead of the $150,000 that they offered us - and the SHA ended up paying us that larger sum without complaint.
Some years later, SHA wanted some of our land for the Md. 200 project, and we were glad to take their money, but we pointed out to them that the land they wanted included an earthen dam for a stormwater management pond, and we expected that they would build us a brand-new dam as a replacement (we used the same attorney as before). This went on for quite a few months, and we spent many thousands of dollars going back and forth with the state's property acquisition agents and the assistant state attorney general working with them and their engineers. In the end, the state agreed with us that they did not want to purchase the dam and have to build us a new one (it would have cost millions of dollars), so the state reconfigured what they wanted to do - and ended up giving us a check for all of the money we spent negotiating with them.
Dr. Gridlock reports the 495 Express Lanes averaged 23,308 vpd in their first six weeks of operation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/01/11/beltway-express-lanes-first-report-on-usage/).
It'd be interesting to see the statistics on where trips started and ended. In particular, given that the lanes opened just over a month before Christmas, I'd be interested in knowing whether a disproportionate number of trips used the Westpark exit (suggesting mall traffic–I know I used the lanes to go to the mall at least twice) and whether the January figures show a different trend.
Heard on the radio this morning that there was another truck accident this morning, though I was half-asleep and didn't catch exactly where. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers, when available, to see whether traffic in the Express Lanes spikes once the traffic reporters mention such incidents.
Edited to add: I see Adam Tuss of Channel 4 has a series of tweets with some numbers. I'll combine them all into a single quotation:
QuoteDuring the first 6 weeks, toll revenue grew 99.1% from a daily average of $12,212 in the first week of operations to an average of $24,317 in the week prior to the Christmas/New Year holidays. To travel the full length of the Express Lanes, the minimum toll price for the period was $1.65 and the maximum peak price was $3.70. The average toll per trip thus far has been $1.07. On average, 92.6% of trips on the Beltway Express Lanes are tolled trips. $828,000 is total revenue from date Beltway Express Lanes opened to 12/31/12. Don't forget operator of lanes collects tolls for next 75 yrs.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2013, 02:46:47 PM
Hey, people need to think of what is around them before they purchase real estate. That includes planned improvements, too.
Yes...unfortunately, that doesn't happen too often. And in some cases, there's stuff private developers do, and these people will still blame the highway authority. Take this example from the December 2012 NJ Turnpike Regular Meeting Minutes ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Minutes-468-507.pdf ) where a member of the public spoke to the board:
"Since the early 1990's, Mrs. Bellocchio has lived at...Ramblewood Parkway, Mt. Laurel, which is located near Interchange 4 on the Turnpike. Mrs. Bellocchio said that she and her neighbors live very close to the roadway because there is not significant right of way between the homeowner's property lines and the roadway. Thus, she has always been able to hear noise from the roadway. She claimed, however, that recently sound levels have escalated. She noted that as part of the recent construction of a solar field, her town authorized the removal of trees which were located between the roadway and her neighborhood and buffered roadway noise. Mrs. Bellocchio stated that the Authority has been very responsive to her requests to address her concerns and those of her neighbors by planting trees. But she would like more trees planted, a berm built, or sound walls constructed in the area. Homeowners in this area want assurance from the Authority that the decibel levels not be above recommended sound levels."
So not only did she move into a neighborhood nearly 40 years after the highway was built, but the Turnpike Authority (IMO) has been overly accommodating to her for a private developer's actions!
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2013, 02:46:47 PM
In the end, the state agreed with us that they did not want to purchase the dam and have to build us a new one (it would have cost millions of dollars), so the state reconfigured what they wanted to do - and ended up giving us a check for all of the money we spent negotiating with them.
Good for you guys! :clap:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2013, 10:33:16 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2013, 02:46:47 PM
Hey, people need to think of what is around them before they purchase real estate. That includes planned improvements, too.
Yes...unfortunately, that doesn't happen too often. And in some cases, there's stuff private developers do, and these people will still blame the highway authority. Take this example from the December 2012 NJ Turnpike Regular Meeting Minutes ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Minutes-468-507.pdf ) where a member of the public spoke to the board:
"Since the early 1990's, Mrs. Bellocchio has lived at...Ramblewood Parkway, Mt. Laurel, which is located near Interchange 4 on the Turnpike. Mrs. Bellocchio said that she and her neighbors live very close to the roadway because there is not significant right of way between the homeowner's property lines and the roadway. Thus, she has always been able to hear noise from the roadway. She claimed, however, that recently sound levels have escalated. She noted that as part of the recent construction of a solar field, her town authorized the removal of trees which were located between the roadway and her neighborhood and buffered roadway noise. Mrs. Bellocchio stated that the Authority has been very responsive to her requests to address her concerns and those of her neighbors by planting trees. But she would like more trees planted, a berm built, or sound walls constructed in the area. Homeowners in this area want assurance from the Authority that the decibel levels not be above recommended sound levels."
So not only did she move into a neighborhood nearly 40 years after the highway was built, but the Turnpike Authority (IMO) has been overly accommodating to her for a private developer's actions!
All (or very nearly all) of the present-day New Jersey Turnpike has been there since 1951 (and the segment of the Pike that she backs-up to is
relatively little changed since then, and as a bonus, most of it has forested buffers along both sides but inside the right-of-way fences - I have not been on the Turnpike for about a year, so I have not seen the area that she says the Turnpike Authority has removed the trees). If someone purchases a home next to the Pike, they need to expect to hear lots of traffic sound. My sympathy meter for Mrs. Bellocchio is on
zero.
I find it curious that she's complaining when she lives south of Exit 6 (Pennsylvania Turnpike connection) - there is normally less traffic between Exit 1 and Exit 6 on the mainline of the Pike.
I get the impression that the Turnpike Authority likes to plant trees when possible (and not just on the Garden State Parkway either), and it should be commended for that. I think it reasonable to assume that the Turnpike will be planting new trees near her property if and when possible.
Following on my prior comment, the people managing the 495 Express Lanes posted the full press release (https://www.495expresslanes.com/feature/1064). It mostly echoes what's in my previous post.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 11, 2013, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2013, 10:33:16 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2013, 02:46:47 PM
Hey, people need to think of what is around them before they purchase real estate. That includes planned improvements, too.
Yes...unfortunately, that doesn't happen too often. And in some cases, there's stuff private developers do, and these people will still blame the highway authority. Take this example from the December 2012 NJ Turnpike Regular Meeting Minutes ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Minutes-468-507.pdf ) where a member of the public spoke to the board:
"Since the early 1990's, Mrs. Bellocchio has lived at...Ramblewood Parkway, Mt. Laurel, which is located near Interchange 4 on the Turnpike. Mrs. Bellocchio said that she and her neighbors live very close to the roadway because there is not significant right of way between the homeowner's property lines and the roadway. Thus, she has always been able to hear noise from the roadway. She claimed, however, that recently sound levels have escalated. She noted that as part of the recent construction of a solar field, her town authorized the removal of trees which were located between the roadway and her neighborhood and buffered roadway noise. Mrs. Bellocchio stated that the Authority has been very responsive to her requests to address her concerns and those of her neighbors by planting trees. But she would like more trees planted, a berm built, or sound walls constructed in the area. Homeowners in this area want assurance from the Authority that the decibel levels not be above recommended sound levels."
So not only did she move into a neighborhood nearly 40 years after the highway was built, but the Turnpike Authority (IMO) has been overly accommodating to her for a private developer's actions!
All (or very nearly all) of the present-day New Jersey Turnpike has been there since 1951 (and the segment of the Pike that she backs-up to is relatively little changed since then, and as a bonus, most of it has forested buffers along both sides but inside the right-of-way fences - I have not been on the Turnpike for about a year, so I have not seen the area that she says the Turnpike Authority has removed the trees). If someone purchases a home next to the Pike, they need to expect to hear lots of traffic sound. My sympathy meter for Mrs. Bellocchio is on zero.
I get the impression that the Turnpike Authority likes to plant trees when possible (and not just on the Garden State Parkway either), and it should be commended for that. I think it reasonable to assume that the Turnpike will be planting new trees near her property if and when possible.
Actually, per the article, the private developer for the solor farm removed the trees, with the township's approval. At least based on what was written in the minutes, the turnpike had nothing to do with this.
The Turnpike has removed a number of trees along the Turnpike (& GS Parkway) over the past few years; most of which were close to the turnpike roadway and were likely to be hit if a vehicle went about 20' off the roadway. In some instances the turnpike has planted new trees further back. I've seem complaints about that, but as you mentioned, in almost all cases the homeowners purchased the house and/or property well after the turnpike was there. Driving thru some of these areas, we're not talking forests of trees that were removed; I doubt removing a few trees here and there really increased the noise all that much.
Video from the 495 Express Lanes at about 8:19 this morning:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_MiscellaneousJanuary2013085_zpse4eda65e.jpg&hash=17bab9cec2743981f6689a2d4f3e0f9a88583420) (http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/?action=view¤t=MiscellaneousJanuary2013085_zpse4eda65e.mp4)
Saw three cop cars in there on this trip and three more on my way back a few hours later. I've heard a lot of rumblings that there's a lot of speed enforcement in there. I have to say it's kind of annoying at non-rush periods when you have to keep it to 60 mph because of a cop in the Express Lanes while everyone on the other side of the barrier is going 70+. Yeah, the ride is a lot more relaxed in the Express Lanes, but it just kind of feels irksome on principle.
(By the way, my trip this morning is an example of how those lanes might change driving patterns. I was going to the dentist just east of downtown Fairfax. In the past I've always taken the Fairfax County Parkway to Roberts Parkway/Roberts Road and then taken that up to Main Street, VA-236; the dentist is near the light at Roberts and Main. Today instead I took the Beltway Express Lanes to I-66, then west to Nutley Street and down Pickett Road to Main Street. Fair number of traffic lights going that way, but it was still faster than the old route.)
I don't knock WTOP for running this story, but it is remarkable that some people don't understand the idea behind pricing for a congestion-free trip.
Transurban: Express Lanes price depends on traffic (http://www.wtop.com/654/3214863/Express-Lanes-price-depends-on-traffic)
QuoteLess than three months since the Beltway Express Lanes opened in Fairfax County, listeners are telling WTOP that prices seem to be going up, even outside of rush hour.
QuoteOne caller tells WTOP he rides the Express Lanes from end to end weekday mornings at 5 a.m., but notes that prices have jumped from $1.80 to $2.10 since November.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 10:29:46 AM
I don't knock WTOP for running this story, but it is remarkable that some people don't understand the idea behind pricing for a congestion-free trip.
Transurban: Express Lanes price depends on traffic (http://www.wtop.com/654/3214863/Express-Lanes-price-depends-on-traffic)
I see what they are getting at. One would assume the express lanes would be at the "base" price at all times during the off peak hours. The price seems to be creeping up despite the lanes being empty. When I drove them back in December, the full length was a $1.85 toll, vs. the $1.65 it was when they opened...... but the HOT lanes were completely empty and the mainline beltway was flying at 75mph with zero delays.
Adam Tuss of Channel 4 is going to do a story on the issue tonight. Usually his reports show up within 24 hours on http://www.nbcwashington.com under the "Video" tab.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2013, 04:14:19 PM
Adam Tuss of Channel 4 is going to do a story on the issue tonight. Usually his reports show up within 24 hours on http://www.nbcwashington.com under the "Video" tab.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/video/#!/news/top-stories/Rising-Cost-of-Va--Express-Lanes/189447061
TransUrban weaseled their way around the question. So I have a few questions.
1. Is anyone from VDOT overseeing/auditing this public-private venture? Honestly, their excuse that there are other "less visible" factors was easily BS on the day I took the lanes. The price shouldn't raise until the lanes actually...umm... have traffic in them. The whole purpose of the variable toll is to induce demand destruction and keep them free flowing. Private ventures (in general, not specifically road related) have a history of dishonesty in order to make the quarterly report look good.
2. Is there a maximum toll limit on the lanes? I can see a beltway event causing people to pile on these lanes and forcing the average speed down. It would cause the toll to skyrocket to an unreasonable value in an attempt to keep the lanes free flowing. Is there any sort of circuit breaker to limit the amount?
As I understand it, there is no maximum.
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2013, 08:15:03 AM
As I understand it, there is no maximum.
That is correct and the project's website confirms it.
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2013, 08:15:03 AM
As I understand it, there is no maximum.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2013, 12:07:32 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2013, 08:15:03 AM
As I understand it, there is no maximum.
That is correct and the project's website confirms it.
Maybe not by law/policy, but I would think there is a de facto maximum based on the carrying capacity of the lanes.
Quote from: deanej on February 02, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2013, 08:15:03 AM
As I understand it, there is no maximum.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2013, 12:07:32 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2013, 08:15:03 AM
As I understand it, there is no maximum.
That is correct and the project's website confirms it.
Maybe not by law/policy, but I would think there is a de facto maximum based on the carrying capacity of the lanes.
There's a maximum in terms of capacity, but the intent of these lanes is that traffic volumes in them will never reach that maximum.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 01, 2013, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 10:29:46 AM
I don't knock WTOP for running this story, but it is remarkable that some people don't understand the idea behind pricing for a congestion-free trip.
Transurban: Express Lanes price depends on traffic (http://www.wtop.com/654/3214863/Express-Lanes-price-depends-on-traffic)
I see what they are getting at. One would assume the express lanes would be at the "base" price at all times during the off peak hours. The price seems to be creeping up despite the lanes being empty. When I drove them back in December, the full length was a $1.85 toll, vs. the $1.65 it was when they opened...... but the HOT lanes were completely empty and the mainline beltway was flying at 75mph with zero delays.
Today at 5:35 a.m. the HOT lanes had fewer than 10 cars observed in the entire 14 miles plus the mainline beltway was wide open.
The full length toll was $2.05.
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 04, 2013, 06:34:06 AM
Today at 5:35 a.m. the HOT lanes had fewer than 10 cars observed in the entire 14 miles plus the mainline beltway was wide open.
The full length toll was $2.05.
That seems high (IMO).
I drove it at that time of the morning on a weekday not long after opening, and the toll was less than $2 ($1.65, I think).
Wondering if the owners are trying to increase revenue - that is not likely to work, at least not when the four conventional lanes are uncongested.
I expect that because the lanes have been open for less than three months they are still tweaking the toll rates and trying to see what will be reasonable versus what will be too high.
There are some trips for which the new lanes simply make more sense, such as going to the mall at Tysons or exiting at Lee Highway, and the amount of the toll is less of a consideration. Of course, I also recognize that there are a lot of people out there who do not view it the same way I do.
TOLLROADSnews: VA 495 Express Lanes traffic "below expectations, adjustments needed" operator tells shareholders (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6388)
QuoteTransurban, principal shareholder and operator of the 495 toll express lanes on the Capital Beltway has told shareholders in Melbourne Australia that initial traffic is below expectations and that adjustment to traffic patterns and motorist preferences will be required. In the 6-week period to the end of 2012 they report revenues of $1.0 million ($800k tolls, $200k other revenues), operating costs of $3.2m, depreciation of $2.1m, and financing costs of $7m for a net loss of $11.3m.
QuoteTransurban and its partner US-based Kiewit spent $1.53 billion on reconstruction to create 2x2 toll express lanes on 12 miles of the Capital Beltway between the Springfield Interchange and Tysons Corner that involved rebuilding interchanges and the free lanes. The toll lanes only opened November 17, so it is early days.
QuoteAfter six weeks operation they said in a report here January 11 that they were getting about 24,000 vehicles workdays up 60% from the initial 15,000 and that 93% were tollpayers and 7% carpoolers entitled to free trips. Revenue was running at an annual rate of $7m we estimated. ($s are Australian dollars similar in value to US$s.)
QuoteA traffic and revenue study by Vollmer/Stantec finalized in February 2007 when the companies were committing to finance the project forecast average weekday trips over the first full year of operations at 66,132 and revenue of $46.1m. After four years operations they forecast 117k/weekday trips and annual revenue of $79m.
QuoteThe forecasts couldn't have foreseen the depth of the financial crisis of later 2007 and 2008 or the length of the recession that resulted. And perhaps they have underestimated a dampener on peakhours' traffic from the internet and greater worktime flexibility.
WTOP Radio: Drivers receive fines for cheating tolls on the Beltway Express Lanes (http://www.wtop.com/654/3226771/Drivers-receive-fines-for-cheating-tolls-on-the-Beltway-Express-Lanes)
It appears that $2.05 is the "new standard". Hopped on with a friend late last night...though we exited early, the overheads were saying $2.05 for the full trip.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2013, 12:27:57 AM
WTOP Radio: Drivers receive fines for cheating tolls on the Beltway Express Lanes (http://www.wtop.com/654/3226771/Drivers-receive-fines-for-cheating-tolls-on-the-Beltway-Express-Lanes)
At $2.05 you would have to get away with this 25 times to cover the first offense assuming you are traveling the whole distance. There are about 20-23 working days in a month. Not sure this is worth the risk IMO.
Washington Post: 495 Express Lanes driver finds Tysons a tricky target (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/495-express-lanes-driver-finds-tysons-a-tricky-target/2013/03/01/72dfdca0-8134-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html)
QuoteI am generally a fan of E-ZPass, but ran into a major issue with the new E-ZPass express lanes in Northern Virginia. Aside from the fact that not all the Capital Beltway exits are available to the E-ZPass drivers, coming from the Maryland side, there is no sign indicating the exit to take for Tysons Corner.
In Georgia, at least one reporter, the "Gridlock Guy" that writes for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports that the I-85 HOT Express Lanes are working. Now those lanes are much more "mature" than the priced lanes on I-495, but his perspective is interesting.
See this (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8958.0) in the Southeast forum.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2013, 09:48:44 AM
In Georgia, at least one reporter, the "Gridlock Guy" that writes for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports that the I-85 HOT Express Lanes are working. Now those lanes are much more "mature" than the priced lanes on I-495, but his perspective is interesting.
See this (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8958.0) in the Southeast forum.
Ah, but there is a key difference between ATL's and NOVA's lanes. In ATL, the lanes were underutilized, and the operator dropped the price to a rock bottom 1 cent/mile when the lanes were empty. This attracts users. In NOVA, despite statements that the price fluctuates with demand and will drop when usage is low, there seems to be an artificial "floor" in place that won't let the price drop below $2.05 for the whole length. This seems rather odd to discourage use when demand is low. After all 50 cents is better than zero cents! But when using only usage numbers to determine success, then of course ATL's will seem more successful.
Quote from: mtantillo on March 08, 2013, 09:10:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2013, 09:48:44 AM
In Georgia, at least one reporter, the "Gridlock Guy" that writes for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports that the I-85 HOT Express Lanes are working. Now those lanes are much more "mature" than the priced lanes on I-495, but his perspective is interesting.
See this (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8958.0) in the Southeast forum.
Ah, but there is a key difference between ATL's and NOVA's lanes. In ATL, the lanes were underutilized, and the operator dropped the price to a rock bottom 1 cent/mile when the lanes were empty. This attracts users. In NOVA, despite statements that the price fluctuates with demand and will drop when usage is low, there seems to be an artificial "floor" in place that won't let the price drop below $2.05 for the whole length. This seems rather odd to discourage use when demand is low. After all 50 cents is better than zero cents! But when using only usage numbers to determine success, then of course ATL's will seem more successful.
I saw it less than that one day this past week when I was on my way to work at about 0400.
WTOP Radio: Two new express bus routes to Tysons start Monday (http://wtop.com/654/3254282/Two-new-express-bus-routes-to-Tysons-start-Monday)
QuoteThe new express routes are Route 493 from Lorton VRE Station and Saratoga Park and Ride to Tysons, and Route 494 from Franconia-Springfield Metro Station and greater Springfield to Tysons.
QuoteBoth routes will take advantage of the Beltway Express Lanes, similar to the Burke to Tysons route that began in January 2013.
WTOP Radio: No tolls on the Beltway Express Lanes this weekend (http://www.wtop.com/654/3269212/Try-Express-Lanes-for-free%5B/url)
QuoteDrivers will get a chance to use the Beltway Express Lanes for free this April 5 and April 6, a move the lanes' operating company hopes will allow drivers to become more familiar with the new byways.
Quote"You won't need an E-ZPass for just this weekend, and if you do have an E-ZPass, you won't be charged," says Pierce Coffee, spokesman for Transurban, which operates the lanes.
Quote"We'll let you get that test drive when you're not running late to work or going to a meeting. Try the 495 Express Lanes, figure out, for example, if the Westpark Drive is best for you or Jones Park Drive in Tysons is helpful."
QuoteCoffee says the free trip on this Saturday and Sunday is unrelated to January numbers, which showed ridership below expectations, losing $11.3 million in the first six weeks of operation.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 01, 2013, 08:31:38 AM
QuoteCoffee says the free trip on this Saturday and Sunday is unrelated to January numbers, which showed ridership below expectations, losing $11.3 million in the first six weeks of operation.
Right. Because a free weekend 4 months after the lanes opened is normal.
Really, they should be doing this on a few weekdays. Many people that would benefit from the tolled lanes aren't going to make a special trip to the office just to test them out.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2013, 09:34:31 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 01, 2013, 08:31:38 AM
QuoteCoffee says the free trip on this Saturday and Sunday is unrelated to January numbers, which showed ridership below expectations, losing $11.3 million in the first six weeks of operation.
Right. Because a free weekend 4 months after the lanes opened is normal.
Though traffic does pick up (at least in the D.C. area) when the weather warms up. And we have just come through a
very cold March.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2013, 09:34:31 AM
Really, they should be doing this on a few weekdays. Many people that would benefit from the tolled lanes aren't going to make a special trip to the office just to test them out.
You may be right. I also think that some drivers who might be tempted to use the lanes don't because they don't have an E-ZPass transponder. Allowing (or even encouraging) toll-by-plate (without the punitive administrative charge, as MdTA is doing on Md. 200) is something the operators of those lanes should consider. I am not sure what the E-ZPass penetration rate is around the D.C. area - it's
nowhere close to 100%.
Coming up with a HOV solution other than flex would help too. Those of us with non-local transponders get charged even if we meet the HOV criteria.
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2013, 11:20:56 AM
Coming up with a HOV solution other than flex would help too. Those of us with non-local transponders get charged even if we meet the HOV criteria.
I have actually thought about that - a lot - because monitoring performance of the HOV lanes is part of my job. Because VDOT has to pay the owners of the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes if there are more than a certain number of HOV-3 vehicles, the E-ZPass Flex transponder was
probably the best way to do it.
The HOV/Toll lanes along Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) in Orange County and along I-15 (Escondido Freeway) in San Diego County have "declaration" lanes for HOVs. But there are not nearly as many access and egress points along those (the Ca. 91 facility is a "one way in" and "one way out" operation, though extensions have been discussed) as there are along the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes, and in most places, there was no room to add one of those "declaration" lanes.
The E-ZPass Flex approach also makes it relatively easy for the Virginia State Police to enforce the HOV-3 requirement. All they have to do is look at the light over the lane at a gantry. It flashes red for a vehicle with a transponder in HOV mode, which makes it easy for the trooper to check that vehicle's occupancy.
Since the trooper can check occupancy, couldn't a camera?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 01, 2013, 11:37:45 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2013, 11:20:56 AM
Coming up with a HOV solution other than flex would help too. Those of us with non-local transponders get charged even if we meet the HOV criteria.
I have actually thought about that - a lot - because monitoring performance of the HOV lanes is part of my job. Because VDOT has to pay the owners of the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes if there are more than a certain number of HOV-3 vehicles, the E-ZPass Flex transponder was probably the best way to do it.
The HOV/Toll lanes along Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) in Orange County and along I-15 (Escondido Freeway) in San Diego County have "declaration" lanes for HOVs. But there are not nearly as many access and egress points along those (the Ca. 91 facility is a "one way in" and "one way out" operation, though extensions have been discussed) as there are along the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes, and in most places, there was no room to add one of those "declaration" lanes.
The E-ZPass Flex approach also makes it relatively easy for the Virginia State Police to enforce the HOV-3 requirement. All they have to do is look at the light over the lane at a gantry. It flashes red for a vehicle with a transponder in HOV mode, which makes it easy for the trooper to check that vehicle's occupancy.
According to the theory of "commuter discounts/plans should be available to all with an E-ZPass", the "HOV commuter plan" (which you can sign up for by purchasing a Flex transponder) seems to fall into a slightly separate category of transponder discrimination. vdeane brings up a good point.
My guess is that Transurban is not exactly too upset about someone from New York on a family vacation to Virginia having to pay the toll despite having a minivan full of kiddies...more money for them. It is also easier for them to enforce the HOV rules. If you have a "put up an E-ZPass if you have 1 or two people, 'bag the tag' if you have 3+" rule, then someone could hide their E-ZPass (human flesh acts as a good enough shield...if you sit on the tag it won't read) when there is no police officer at the gantry, and pop the tag up quickly if there is an officer, in effect, only paying for segments where there is an officer present. With the Flex rule, once you pass a gantry, the fact that you entered with the tag in HOV mode is "locked in" (along with your toll rate). So if you pass 4 gantries with no officer, and then you see an officer at the 5th gantry, if you flip the switch to non-HOV mode, my understanding is that the light will still flash and you will still get pulled over, and then be forced to pay for all of the gantries you skipped. And as cpz mentioned, it is easier for Transurban and VDOT to keep track of carpoolers in case the carpool threshold exceeds that where VDOT would be required to pay Transurban for a toll.
I actually read an article about this recently (can't remember where though). The article was discussing two types of HOT lanes, and two types of carpools. I bet cpz has some comments about this topic.
The first type of HOT lane is an underutilized HOV lane that is converted to allow toll paying SOV traffic. These lanes typically have very low capital costs since the infrastructure is already there and paid for, only the toll collection infrastructure is needed to convert to HOT. In these lanes, the priority is generally given to HOV traffic (the original intended users), and "excess space is sold". This is money that a government or HOT lane owner would otherwise not get for very little extra investment, so these lanes often have high percentages of those who do not pay tolls, not too much in terms of income, but high profitability since they have few expenses to pay. The toll rates can be dropped to rock bottom rates when the lanes are empty.
The other kind of HOT lane is similar to the ones on I-495, new lanes constructed to be HOT lanes. These have much higher costs because it involves new construction. Therefore, the operators are much more interested in recovering high construction costs. So, these shouldn't be thought of as "HOV lanes with excess capacity sold", but more "toll lanes that allow HOV's meeting very specific requirements in for free). In otherwords, they want most vehicles to pay tolls. They need to make money. They have an incentive to make it difficult to claim the carpool exemption. They also typically have higher toll rates, because they need to maximize revenue, even if the traffic carrying utility of these lanes is low. They would rather make big bucks off a small number of users, hoping to entice more users into the empty lanes, rather than fill the lanes up at a low toll rate and risk not maximizing their revenue.
Then we get to the two kinds of carpools. Work-based carpools: co-workers ridesharing from home to the office, where some co-workers would otherwise be driving alone. These carpools actually remove vehicles from the road. "Fampools": carpools comprised of family members traveling together that would otherwise travel together anyway, and can include infants and other non-licensed drivers. These carpools do not remove vehicles from the road, yet are entitled to the same benefits as co-worker based carpools. When a typical HOV lane is involved, it might not seem fair that fampools have access to the HOV lanes, but since many HOV lanes are underutilized (not necessarily in DC area, but throughout the country), this at least gives the illusion that they are more useful in carrying people/removing cars from the road than they really are. No harm, no foul, any car in the HOV lane is one less car in the other lanes. But when HOT lanes get involved...these fampools translate into revenue loss for the operators of the lanes. All of a sudden, you find a war against casual carpooling and fampools because the operators of these lanes feel that discounts/free passage should be given to only a few, and priority for that should be given to those who actually remove other cars from the road.
The author of this paper was actually advocating for a system similar to what is used on I-95 in Florida, where only registered carpools can obtain free passage. Everyone else pays a toll. In order to register, each member of the carpool must be a licensed driver (in Florida), and provide their license, registration, home and work address (to show that it is reasonable that the lanes would be used by 3+ for the purpose of going to work). Each driver has the ability to use their car for the carpool, but audits are performed both on the road and electronically to ensure that abuse is not occurring...the enforcement is done by shielding the transponder, using an HOV sticker, and the toll system will capture the license plate number which is on a "white list" so that no violations are issued if no ETC transponder is present. On the road- does the vehicle that did not pay the toll have a carpool sticker and 3 people inside? Electronically- did all of the three vehicles in the carpool use the lanes toll free on the same morning multiple times, or something similar that could indicate the lanes are not being used by the registered occupants for a trip to/from work?
So Florida has made it next to impossible for casual carpools and fampools to gain free access...and I'm sure FDOT is okay with this, because that means more revenue for them.
Los Angeles and DC have taken an intermediate approach. They won't require registration with tight requirements, but they won't let everyone use the lanes for free just by virtue of not having an active transponder (or a bagged/shielded transponder)...they will make you do just enough upfront work, and will make it more costly than obtaining a regular transponder (in Virginia, it is an extra 50 cents per month for a Flex, in Maryland the one time fee is $18, instead of $9 for a regular transponder), so as to discourage as many people as possible. Of course, they won't advertise to anyone outside the DC area about the E-ZPass Flex option, but by golly, they will ensure that you know anyone with an E-ZPass, even one from far away, can enter the lanes if they wish to pay!
So I would expect more of these schemes to make claiming the HOV exemption more difficult in the future as HOT lanes spread, and toll operators seek to minimize "fampools" taking advantage of these discounts.
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2013, 05:01:42 PM
Since the trooper can check occupancy, couldn't a camera?
Last discussion I heard of that was at a session of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) a few years ago. At the time, the formal research was that there is no unclassified technology out there that could reliably measure vehicle occupancy.
Keep in mind that if a driver violates the HOV requirement and gets caught, a summons is issued that can be challenged in court.
I suppose that HOV violations based on an automated device could be defined as non-moving violations with a modest (or not-so-modest) fine, but no "points" on the drivers license and a lower legal burden of proof.
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
According to the theory of "commuter discounts/plans should be available to all with an E-ZPass", the "HOV commuter plan" (which you can sign up for by purchasing a Flex transponder) seems to fall into a slightly separate category of transponder discrimination. vdeane brings up a good point.
Yes, it is a form of transponder discrimination (though MdTA does issue Flex transponders (I have one), even though Maryland does not currently have any HOV/Toll roads or crossings (and as far as I know, does not plan to have any)).
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
My guess is that Transurban is not exactly too upset about someone from New York on a family vacation to Virginia having to pay the toll despite having a minivan full of kiddies...more money for them. It is also easier for them to enforce the HOV rules. If you have a "put up an E-ZPass if you have 1 or two people, 'bag the tag' if you have 3+" rule, then someone could hide their E-ZPass (human flesh acts as a good enough shield...if you sit on the tag it won't read) when there is no police officer at the gantry, and pop the tag up quickly if there is an officer, in effect, only paying for segments where there is an officer present. With the Flex rule, once you pass a gantry, the fact that you entered with the tag in HOV mode is "locked in" (along with your toll rate). So if you pass 4 gantries with no officer, and then you see an officer at the 5th gantry, if you flip the switch to non-HOV mode, my understanding is that the light will still flash and you will still get pulled over, and then be forced to pay for all of the gantries you skipped. And as cpz mentioned, it is easier for Transurban and VDOT to keep track of carpoolers in case the carpool threshold exceeds that where VDOT would be required to pay Transurban for a toll.
All correct. You are especially spot-on about the out-of-town family having to pay the toll (since lanes with HOV restrictions are presumably there for commuter traffic, not vacation or other "non-work" traffic that "naturally" has a higher average occupancy rate).
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
I actually read an article about this recently (can't remember where though). The article was discussing two types of HOT lanes, and two types of carpools. I bet cpz has some comments about this topic.
Yep.
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
The first type of HOT lane is an underutilized HOV lane that is converted to allow toll paying SOV traffic. These lanes typically have very low capital costs since the infrastructure is already there and paid for, only the toll collection infrastructure is needed to convert to HOT. In these lanes, the priority is generally given to HOV traffic (the original intended users), and "excess space is sold". This is money that a government or HOT lane owner would otherwise not get for very little extra investment, so these lanes often have high percentages of those who do not pay tolls, not too much in terms of income, but high profitability since they have few expenses to pay. The toll rates can be dropped to rock bottom rates when the lanes are empty.
That's the model for the existing I-95/I-395 (Shirley Highway) HOV lanes between Va. 234 (Dumfries) and the Turkeycock Run ramps in Fairfax County, Va. Though they do pretty well when it comes to moving people, they suffer from "empty lane syndrome."
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
The other kind of HOT lane is similar to the ones on I-495, new lanes constructed to be HOT lanes. These have much higher costs because it involves new construction. Therefore, the operators are much more interested in recovering high construction costs. So, these shouldn't be thought of as "HOV lanes with excess capacity sold", but more "toll lanes that allow HOV's meeting very specific requirements in for free). In otherwords, they want most vehicles to pay tolls. They need to make money. They have an incentive to make it difficult to claim the carpool exemption. They also typically have higher toll rates, because they need to maximize revenue, even if the traffic carrying utility of these lanes is low. They would rather make big bucks off a small number of users, hoping to entice more users into the empty lanes, rather than fill the lanes up at a low toll rate and risk not maximizing their revenue.
Also correct. And remember that as part of the HOV/Toll land construction, there was
a lot of money spent on the eight parallel "free" lanes of I-495 in Fairfax County.
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
Then we get to the two kinds of carpools. Work-based carpools: co-workers ridesharing from home to the office, where some co-workers would otherwise be driving alone. These carpools actually remove vehicles from the road. "Fampools": carpools comprised of family members traveling together that would otherwise travel together anyway, and can include infants and other non-licensed drivers. These carpools do not remove vehicles from the road, yet are entitled to the same benefits as co-worker based carpools. When a typical HOV lane is involved, it might not seem fair that fampools have access to the HOV lanes, but since many HOV lanes are underutilized (not necessarily in DC area, but throughout the country), this at least gives the illusion that they are more useful in carrying people/removing cars from the road than they really are. No harm, no foul, any car in the HOV lane is one less car in the other lanes. But when HOT lanes get involved...these fampools translate into revenue loss for the operators of the lanes. All of a sudden, you find a war against casual carpooling and fampools because the operators of these lanes feel that discounts/free passage should be given to only a few, and priority for that should be given to those who actually remove other cars from the road.
Your words above remind me a lot of what Bob Poole (of the Reason Foundation) has said about HOV lanes (and especially those that are underutilized, including "fampools," which have long existed, especially in Northern Virginia - even when the HOV requirement was HOV-4).
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
The author of this paper was actually advocating for a system similar to what is used on I-95 in Florida, where only registered carpools can obtain free passage. Everyone else pays a toll. In order to register, each member of the carpool must be a licensed driver (in Florida), and provide their license, registration, home and work address (to show that it is reasonable that the lanes would be used by 3+ for the purpose of going to work). Each driver has the ability to use their car for the carpool, but audits are performed both on the road and electronically to ensure that abuse is not occurring...the enforcement is done by shielding the transponder, using an HOV sticker, and the toll system will capture the license plate number which is on a "white list" so that no violations are issued if no ETC transponder is present. On the road- does the vehicle that did not pay the toll have a carpool sticker and 3 people inside? Electronically- did all of the three vehicles in the carpool use the lanes toll free on the same morning multiple times, or something similar that could indicate the lanes are not being used by the registered occupants for a trip to/from work?
That approach would be really, really bad in Northern Virginia (especially in the Shirley Highway corridor), where there is a very active system of informal car-pooling called "slugging" (see this (http://www.slug-lines.com/) Web site for more). Slugging dates back to the earliest days of HOV-4 operation on Shirley Highway in the 1970's, when the reversible HOV lanes ended just south of Va. 644 (Franconia Road/Old Keene Mill Road). Drivers in the Springfield area of Fairfax County on Old Keene Mill Road (especially) would stop at the bus stops and pick up enough riders ("slugs") to comply with the HOV requirement (once HOV-4, HOV-3 since the late 1980's). This
infuriated the staff at WMATA (no Fairfax Connector back then), who felt that the drivers ("body snatchers") were "stealing" their paying patrons. Eventually the system of slugging evolved and expanded, so there are formal "slug lines" at an assortment of places along the I-95/I-395 corridor as far south as (!) Caroline County (according to the Web site hyperlinked above).
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
So Florida has made it next to impossible for casual carpools and fampools to gain free access...and I'm sure FDOT is okay with this, because that means more revenue for them.
Agreed.
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
Los Angeles and DC have taken an intermediate approach. They won't require registration with tight requirements, but they won't let everyone use the lanes for free just by virtue of not having an active transponder (or a bagged/shielded transponder)...they will make you do just enough upfront work, and will make it more costly than obtaining a regular transponder (in Virginia, it is an extra 50 cents per month for a Flex, in Maryland the one time fee is $18, instead of $9 for a regular transponder), so as to discourage as many people as possible. Of course, they won't advertise to anyone outside the DC area about the E-ZPass Flex option, but by golly, they will ensure that you know anyone with an E-ZPass, even one from far away, can enter the lanes if they wish to pay!
That is correct. I did not feel that the one-time $18 charge by MdTA was unreasonable.
I have
some familiarity with the I-10 (San Bernardino Freeway) HOV-3 facility in Los Angeles County, also sometimes called the El Monte Busway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Monte_Busway). I once saw some of the person-moving stats from those lanes, and they looked to be as good as the Shirley Highway HOV lanes in terms of time saved and persons transported in two lanes.
Quote from: mtantillo on April 01, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
So I would expect more of these schemes to make claiming the HOV exemption more difficult in the future as HOT lanes spread, and toll operators seek to minimize "fampools" taking advantage of these discounts.
Speaking of HOV travel, the one thing that all of the D.C.-area operators of toll roads (MWAA, Transurban, TRIP II and MdTA) do allow for free, with no restriction at all, is transit buses.
All of them allow (transit and commuter) buses to use their toll roads and toll crossings (there's Maryland Transit Administration "Flyer" express bus service crossing the Bay Bridge and on the ICC), though I presume the loss of revenue is not that high, since the number of buses in the fleet is relatively small and it is easy to manage the (presumably non-revenue) transponders issued for bus use.
I believe that school buses are legally entitled to free passage, even though they obviously are not for transportation of commuters (this may be made easier because the public school buses in all (or most) of Virginia and in the close-in Maryland suburbs of D.C. all have local government registration plates - most other counties in Maryland contract-out school bus service to the private sector, and those buses do not have government registration).
Being the national capital, I have seen yellow school buses around Washington from as far away as Connecticut to the north; South Carolina to the south and
distant West Virginia counties (I believe I have seen Ohio County, W.Va. buses from the Northern Panhandle) to the west on multi-day field trips to D.C. Not sure if those buses are entitled to free passage or not.
Not a DC road, but I remember on a trip to Richmond in high school the bus driver paid a toll on 195, which surprised me considering I had assumed city school buses with local government plates wouldn't have to pay, like you describe.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 01, 2013, 11:04:03 PM
Not a DC road, but I remember on a trip to Richmond in high school the bus driver paid a toll on 195, which surprised me considering I had assumed city school buses with local government plates wouldn't have to pay, like you describe.
I have seen Fairfax County Public Schools buses stop at the Dulles Toll Road tolls and be asked to sign something, then sent on their way (why FCPS doesn't have E-ZPass transponders in its bus fleet - at least those that use Va. 267 - is above my pay grade).
Since Md. 200 opened, I have seen a fair number of Montgomery County Public Schools buses on it. MCPS has obtained orange non-revenue transponders for the buses that drive Md. 200 (apparently not all states issue orange E-ZPass transponders).
I'm surprised there are buses from that far away. My school district always contracted to Coach whenever there was a trip more than an hour long each way. I can't imagine it's comfortable to sit in a yellow limo for eight hours.
Quote from: vdeane on April 02, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
I'm surprised there are buses from that far away. My school district always contracted to Coach whenever there was a trip more than an hour long each way. I can't imagine it's comfortable to sit in a yellow limo for eight hours.
It's not even comfortable for eight minutes.
And c.p., that may be it - they may have just signed something. I couldn't really see, I just know we stopped at the booth.
Quote from: vdeane on April 02, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
I'm surprised there are buses from that far away. My school district always contracted to Coach whenever there was a trip more than an hour long each way. I can't imagine it's comfortable to sit in a yellow limo for eight hours.
Agreed. Though I believe some school districts have "nicer" buses (perhaps with transmission gearing appropriate for freeway speeds) for those longer field trips. Having grown up next to Washington, D.C., all of our field trips (usually to D.C. or to Baltimore), we had no need for anything beyond a "regular" school bus.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 02, 2013, 05:49:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 02, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
I'm surprised there are buses from that far away. My school district always contracted to Coach whenever there was a trip more than an hour long each way. I can't imagine it's comfortable to sit in a yellow limo for eight hours.
It's not even comfortable for eight minutes.
Pump, I agree, though I never had to ride a bus to school (I always lived close enough to walk or I took transit one year). So school buses for those of us who did not routinely ride a bus was something of an
adventure, and
fun. The farthest we ever went was about 70 miles to the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 02, 2013, 05:49:34 PM
And c.p., that may be it - they may have just signed something. I couldn't really see, I just know we stopped at the booth.
I know in Virginia, the bus drivers had to sign something. I have seen that at a few different Virginia toll facilities (but especially at Va. 267, the DTR).
Quote from: vdeane on April 02, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
I'm surprised there are buses from that far away. My school district always contracted to Coach whenever there was a trip more than an hour long each way. I can't imagine it's comfortable to sit in a yellow limo for eight hours.
Wow, your school must have had more money than mine. I can specifically remember a trip of more than 120 miles in a yellow school bus. And let me tell you, after completely stuffing yourself on Mexican food to the absolute max, it is not a good idea to ride in the
back seat of a school bus. X-(
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 02, 2013, 08:10:47 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 02, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
I'm surprised there are buses from that far away. My school district always contracted to Coach whenever there was a trip more than an hour long each way. I can't imagine it's comfortable to sit in a yellow limo for eight hours.
Agreed. Though I believe some school districts have "nicer" buses (perhaps with transmission gearing appropriate for freeway speeds) for those longer field trips. Having grown up next to Washington, D.C., all of our field trips (usually to D.C. or to Baltimore), we had no need for anything beyond a "regular" school bus.
I attended Fairfax public schools (WT Woodson High) and I recall multiple high school field trips to the Richmond area (including Chester) and Winchester, all on school buses. It was not a fun way to travel. I don't remember whether field trips to Norfolk were via school bus or charter bus. I do remember the school bus driver having to stop at the I-95 toll plazas.
Quote from: kphoger on April 02, 2013, 08:25:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 02, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
I'm surprised there are buses from that far away. My school district always contracted to Coach whenever there was a trip more than an hour long each way. I can't imagine it's comfortable to sit in a yellow limo for eight hours.
Wow, your school must have had more money than mine. I can specifically remember a trip of more than 120 miles in a yellow school bus. And let me tell you, after completely stuffing yourself on Mexican food to the absolute max, it is not a good idea to ride in the back seat of a school bus. X-(
Who knows. My school district didn't actually maintain any buses, they contracted to another company to run them. That might have changed the economics of the situation.
Transportation Nation: Why Tolls Will Be Waived On One Virginia Highway This Weekend (http://transportationnation.org/2013/04/05/why-tolls-will-be-waived-on-one-virginia-highway-this-weekend/)
QuoteNearly five months after opening, the operators of the 495 Express Lanes are struggling to attract motorists to their congestion-free toll road in a region mired in some of the worst traffic congestion in the country.
QuoteTransurban, the construction conglomerate that put up $1.5 billion to build the 14-mile, EZ Pass-only corridor on the Beltway between the I-95 interchange and Dulles Toll Road, will let motorists use the highway free this weekend in a bid to win more converts.
Quote"It takes a lot of time for drivers in the area to adapt to new driving behaviors. A lot of us are kind of stuck on autopilot on our commutes. That trend might continue for a while, too," said Transurban spokesman Michael McGurk.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 05, 2013, 12:56:39 PM
Quote"It takes a lot of time for drivers in the area to adapt to new driving behaviors. A lot of us are kind of stuck on autopilot on our commutes. That trend might continue for a while, too," said Transurban spokesman Michael McGurk.
I think they mis-spelled "It takes a lot of time to convince drivers that they should pay over $2.00 to drive 14 miles when they often can drive the same distance in the same amount of time just a few lanes over for free."
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2013, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 05, 2013, 12:56:39 PM
Quote"It takes a lot of time for drivers in the area to adapt to new driving behaviors. A lot of us are kind of stuck on autopilot on our commutes. That trend might continue for a while, too," said Transurban spokesman Michael McGurk.
I think they mis-spelled "It takes a lot of time to convince drivers that they should pay over $2.00 to drive 14 miles when they often can drive the same distance in the same amount of time just a few lanes over for free."
The adjacent "free" or non-managed lanes have a long history of being severely congested. The tolled lanes have the potential to reduce travel time by as much as 20 to 30 minutes in the morning and in the afternoon.
As I've mentioned, the trip home from Falls Church at 4:30 PM has taken me 17 minutes via those lanes instead of 45 minutes via the old route. It CAN be well worth it. One issue they have is that they don't have any travel-time signs to give people a sense for when it is, though. (From my point of view, any trip to the mall at Tysons uses the tolled lanes due to easier access, regardless of whether the "free" lanes are moving at the same speed.)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 05, 2013, 01:59:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2013, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 05, 2013, 12:56:39 PM
Quote"It takes a lot of time for drivers in the area to adapt to new driving behaviors. A lot of us are kind of stuck on autopilot on our commutes. That trend might continue for a while, too," said Transurban spokesman Michael McGurk.
I think they mis-spelled "It takes a lot of time to convince drivers that they should pay over $2.00 to drive 14 miles when they often can drive the same distance in the same amount of time just a few lanes over for free."
The adjacent "free" or non-managed lanes have a long history of being severely congested. The tolled lanes have the potential to reduce travel time by as much as 20 to 30 minutes in the morning and in the afternoon.
And what about the other 18 hours a day?
I can understand the significant time savings during the rush hours, which probably experience some good congestion for 3 hours or so in the mornings and afternoons, 5 days a week But if traffic moves smoothly the other 75% of the time during the weekdays, and probably the majority of the weekend, what's the incentive to pay $2 or so then?
Yes - I say 'probably', because I don't know the daily periods of true congestion in this area. But while many people will point out the congested periods, there's generally a much larger portion of the day when congestion doesn't occur.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2013, 03:36:25 PM
And what about the other 18 hours a day?
The Capital Beltway can be congested at any time - especially during daytime hours, Monday through Sunday. Bad weather (including light rain) can be the cause of long backups.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2013, 03:36:25 PM
I can understand the significant time savings during the rush hours, which probably experience some good congestion for 3 hours or so in the mornings and afternoons, 5 days a week But if traffic moves smoothly the other 75% of the time during the weekdays, and probably the majority of the weekend, what's the incentive to pay $2 or so then?
Yes - I say 'probably', because I don't know the daily periods of true congestion in this area. But while many people will point out the congested periods, there's generally a much larger portion of the day when congestion doesn't occur.
Before the great recession got going in 2008, I frequently observed congestion on this part of the Capital Beltway from before 6 A.M. to after 10 A.M. in the mornings (especially Inner Loop) and from 2 P.M. to after 8 P.M. (especially Outer Loop).
The recession has reduced traffic (and congestion) on some roads in and around D.C., but when I last looked at it before the HOV/Toll lanes opened (summer of 2012), the congestion was still terrible for long periods (and in part due to construction activity related to those HOV/Toll lanes).
As I suggested
way upthread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7481.msg168804#msg168804), one of the biggest problems with the HOV/Toll lanes is that they don't go across the American Legion Bridge into Maryland. Their northern end is at one of the most-congested segments of the entire Capital Beltway.
WTOP Radio: Could HOT lane construction put Va. residents at risk? (http://www.wtop.com/654/3276683/Could-HOT-lane-construction-put-Va-residents-at-risk)
QuoteAt a rally held next to the ramp that will mark the end of the Interstate 95 Express Lanes, an Alexandria group called on the Virginia Department of Transportation to delay construction until a public health study is complete.
QuoteIn late March, the group turned over a lengthy report from environmental engineer Maureen Barrett at AERO Engineering that found the I-95 terminus ramp just north of Edsall Road would produce toxic amounts of nitrogen dioxide and PM 2.5 that will harm nearby residents.
Quote"In a haphazard and quick way, when VDOT lost the Arlington location, where the HOT Lanes were supposed to end, it looked around and picked out Turkeycock Run and decided to ended it here," says John B. Britton, attorney for the Concerned Residents of Landmark.
Quote"We're not opposed to the entire projects or HOT Lanes, we just want VDOT to evaluate changing this community by making this the terminus location. We want an open, public forum to discuss the issues."
QuoteBritton is the same attorney that Arlington County used to sue VDOT in 2009. As a result of the suit, VDOT decided to change the final location of the I-95 Express Lanes in Feb. 2011. He wouldn't comment on whether the Landmark group will also sue.
Dr. Gridlock of the Washington Post: Toll-free weekend offers drivers a chance to navigate Beltway express lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/toll-free-weekend-offers-drivers-a-chance-to-navigate-beltway-express-lanes/2013/04/06/90573006-9bbc-11e2-9bda-edd1a7fb557d_story.html)
Looking at the comments from that article, there seems to be a main theme from the commenters that actually make sense: Signage Issues. Is coming off an exit with no destination signage still an issue?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2013, 09:04:32 AM
Looking at the comments from that article, there seems to be a main theme from the commenters that actually make sense: Signage Issues. Is coming off an exit with no destination signage still an issue?
IMO, the signage is pretty good.
Now I am biased, because I know every interchange on the Capital Beltway pretty well (and where the crossing roads lead), but it seems to me the signs are O.K.
I agree. I think the signs on the Virginia portion of the Beltway are substantially improved over what was there prior to the reconstruction (the I-66 and Dulles interchanges in particular).
A lot of the people who comment on Dr. Gridlock's articles are just whiners.
I liked this comment:
QuoteSomeone just call out all these people for what they are, stupid and incompetent drivers. You can't figure out the express lanes? If you use the beltway even somewhat regularly, are you telling me you haven't seen how the lanes and exits were being constructed even once during the last 4 years. Besides that, are you blind? It's not like they built a wall between the regular lanes and the express lanes. Am I the one person that can glance to my left, from the regular lanes, to see where the express exit and entrance ramps were placed? Maybe these are the same people who need to have their driver license revoked because they shouldn't be on the roads in the first place.
QuoteAdam Tuss @AdamTuss 2h
Va Express Lanes leaders say revenue is up. The lanes have made $3.3 million so far this year. Average workday trips are about 25k
I don't know how much they projected they'd make each year.
Edited to add: I just heard a radio report saying so far the maximum toll rate for the entire length has been $6.35. They didn't say when that was. Yesterday morning just after 8:00 it cost me $3.15 from Springfield to I-66 (would have been $4.40 to the other end). I'll write it off as a business expense, but it would have been worth it anyway. The general-purpose lanes were crawling. I did note a lot more motorcycles in the Express Lanes. Makes sense (they ride free), but it was a bit annoying since they were overly aggressive.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 11, 2013, 01:06:38 PM
Edited to add: I just heard a radio report saying so far the maximum toll rate for the entire length has been $6.35. They didn't say when that was. Yesterday morning just after 8:00 it cost me $3.15 from Springfield to I-66 (would have been $4.40 to the other end).
Never personally seen them above $4.
If you heard that on WTOP Radio, this is likely the text version: Drivers slow to use 495 Express Lanes (http://www.wtop.com/41/3282673/Drivers-slow-to-use-495-Express-Lanes)
I really take issue with the statement below (
emphasis added):
QuoteThe maximum toll since the lanes opened was $6.35 to travel the entire length of the express lanes from Springfield to the Maryland line. The tolls go up and down depending on congestion.
Where the 495 Express Lanes end is a
long way from the Maryland border, especially when that part of the Beltway is at its congested worst.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2013, 07:34:25 PM
....
I really take issue with the statement below (emphasis added):
QuoteThe maximum toll since the lanes opened was $6.35 to travel the entire length of the express lanes from Springfield to the Maryland line. The tolls go up and down depending on congestion.
Where the 495 Express Lanes end is a long way from the Maryland border, especially when that part of the Beltway is at its congested worst.
Agreed, plus there are two very important exits between there and the Maryland line. I used that route last week, April 2 or 3, going from the courthouse in Fairfax down to the Watergate to pick up Ms1995hoo after work (I-66 to 495 Express Lanes/Beltway beyond the Express Lanes, then GW Parkway), and the stretch from the Express Lanes' end to that overpass just after VA-193 was by far the slowest part of the entire trip, although that's only because I ran the C/D road at Nutley Street after hearing on the radio that there'd been a wreck (which turned out to have all lanes blocked just before the C/D road merged back in).
Really, it seems like facts play no part in a lot of local media reporting.
You know, I look at all the whining and ignorance displayed by a lot of people regarding the Beltway's Express Lanes and I can't help but wonder how much more grousing there will be when the I-95 project opens. Some of that will be well-deserved, IMO, because they're taking existing lanes anyone can use outside rush hour (except trucks near Dumfries due to the weigh station) and making the solo drivers pay a toll. But the "segment-based" tolling is almost certain to confuse the heck out of a lot of people. I've looked at their publicity materials and they really don't explain it very well.
What they ought to do is to include a page on their website explaining how the I-95 lanes will differ from the Beltway lanes and then explaining what they mean by "segments." Something along the lines of, "On the Beltway you cannot exit back into the general-purpose lanes. The I-95 HOV facility was built with a number of ramps allowing such movements, and those will remain in place. Posted toll rates will apply up to the next such ramp back to the general-purpose lanes, and as you approach those ramps you will see the toll from there to the next such ramp. That rate might be higher or lower than the rate you locked in up to that point, and you can then decide whether to remain in the Express Lanes or to exit back to the general-purpose lanes."
That wording is probably still too complex for most people, so the ideal might be to use a map as an example.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 12, 2013, 03:43:57 PM
Agreed, plus there are two very important exits between there and the Maryland line. I used that route last week, April 2 or 3, going from the courthouse in Fairfax down to the Watergate to pick up Ms1995hoo after work (I-66 to 495 Express Lanes/Beltway beyond the Express Lanes, then GW Parkway), and the stretch from the Express Lanes' end to that overpass just after VA-193 was by far the slowest part of the entire trip, although that's only because I ran the C/D road at Nutley Street after hearing on the radio that there'd been a wreck (which turned out to have all lanes blocked just before the C/D road merged back in).
Perversely, the reason that the 495 HOV/Toll lanes end where they do (north of Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road)) can be squarely blamed on Maryland (and in particular on Montgomery County, Maryland), even though there are those two Virginia interchanges north of the end of those lanes, at Va. 193 (Georgetown Pike, Exit 44), and "secret" Va. 90005 (George Washington Memorial Parkway, Exit 43). Though Virginia has engaged in similarly bad behavior recently (albeit on a smaller scale), where the relocated lanes of W.Va. 9 had to narrow down to one lane each way before reaching the Loudoun County, Va. border, in part at the insistence of Virginia environmental/Smart Growth groups.
Regarding I-66 (especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks (Exit 57) and I-495 (Exit 64), it is a very crash-prone segment of freeway. I have seen more than one wreck there where the Vienna C-D lanes end on the eastbound side east of Va. 243 (Nutley Street, Exit 62), perhaps because the merge is "difficult" for reasons not entirely clear to me.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 13, 2013, 09:00:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 12, 2013, 03:43:57 PM
Agreed, plus there are two very important exits between there and the Maryland line. I used that route last week, April 2 or 3, going from the courthouse in Fairfax down to the Watergate to pick up Ms1995hoo after work (I-66 to 495 Express Lanes/Beltway beyond the Express Lanes, then GW Parkway), and the stretch from the Express Lanes' end to that overpass just after VA-193 was by far the slowest part of the entire trip, although that's only because I ran the C/D road at Nutley Street after hearing on the radio that there'd been a wreck (which turned out to have all lanes blocked just before the C/D road merged back in).
Perversely, the reason that the 495 HOV/Toll lanes end where they do (north of Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road)) can be squarely blamed on Maryland (and in particular on Montgomery County, Maryland), even though there are those two Virginia interchanges north of the end of those lanes, at Va. 193 (Georgetown Pike, Exit 44), and "secret" Va. 90005 (George Washington Memorial Parkway, Exit 43). Though Virginia has engaged in similarly bad behavior recently (albeit on a smaller scale), where the relocated lanes of W.Va. 9 had to narrow down to one lane each way before reaching the Loudoun County, Va. border, in part at the insistence of Virginia environmental/Smart Growth groups.
Regarding I-66 (especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks (Exit 57) and I-495 (Exit 64), it is a very crash-prone segment of freeway. I have seen more than one wreck there where the Vienna C-D lanes end on the eastbound side east of Va. 243 (Nutley Street, Exit 62), perhaps because the merge is "difficult" for reasons not entirely clear to me.
Now that people from GW Parkway and VA 193 have access to the Express Lanes, I sure hope they preserve that access if the lanes are ever extended into MD.
Is Jefferson County, WV even considered part of the Washington DC Metropolitan area? I always thought the MPOs were tasked with coordinating these things across political boundaries within a metropolitan area, but couldn't really do much outside of a metro area. In otherwords, although I wish VA would upgrade all of VA 9, it doesn't seem quite as eggregious as the Express Lanes' dead end south of the American Legion Bridge. The WV 9 upgrade is really nice though, it makes getting to the Casino in Charles Town that much easier ;-)
Quote from: mtantillo on April 15, 2013, 03:11:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 13, 2013, 09:00:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 12, 2013, 03:43:57 PM
Agreed, plus there are two very important exits between there and the Maryland line. I used that route last week, April 2 or 3, going from the courthouse in Fairfax down to the Watergate to pick up Ms1995hoo after work (I-66 to 495 Express Lanes/Beltway beyond the Express Lanes, then GW Parkway), and the stretch from the Express Lanes' end to that overpass just after VA-193 was by far the slowest part of the entire trip, although that's only because I ran the C/D road at Nutley Street after hearing on the radio that there'd been a wreck (which turned out to have all lanes blocked just before the C/D road merged back in).
Perversely, the reason that the 495 HOV/Toll lanes end where they do (north of Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road)) can be squarely blamed on Maryland (and in particular on Montgomery County, Maryland), even though there are those two Virginia interchanges north of the end of those lanes, at Va. 193 (Georgetown Pike, Exit 44), and "secret" Va. 90005 (George Washington Memorial Parkway, Exit 43). Though Virginia has engaged in similarly bad behavior recently (albeit on a smaller scale), where the relocated lanes of W.Va. 9 had to narrow down to one lane each way before reaching the Loudoun County, Va. border, in part at the insistence of Virginia environmental/Smart Growth groups.
Regarding I-66 (especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks (Exit 57) and I-495 (Exit 64), it is a very crash-prone segment of freeway. I have seen more than one wreck there where the Vienna C-D lanes end on the eastbound side east of Va. 243 (Nutley Street, Exit 62), perhaps because the merge is "difficult" for reasons not entirely clear to me.
Now that people from GW Parkway and VA 193 have access to the Express Lanes, I sure hope they preserve that access if the lanes are ever extended into MD.
Especially the GWMP. From Va. 193, it's a lot of lanes to cross in a fairly short distance to enter the HOV/Toll lanes.
Quote from: mtantillo on April 15, 2013, 03:11:57 PM
Is Jefferson County, WV even considered part of the Washington DC Metropolitan area? I always thought the MPOs were tasked with coordinating these things across political boundaries within a metropolitan area, but couldn't really do much outside of a metro area. In otherwords, although I wish VA would upgrade all of VA 9, it doesn't seem quite as eggregious as the Express Lanes' dead end south of the American Legion Bridge. The WV 9 upgrade is really nice though, it makes getting to the Casino in Charles Town that much easier ;-)
The Washington MPO model models Jefferson County, even though the county is not part of the Washington region for MPO purposes. Jefferson County is part of the Hagerstown, Maryland MPO.
The Washington MPO model extends beyond the MPO's counties in most directions, at least one county out, sometimes 2. It reduces the impact of external trips on the travel demand forecasting process.
Drove from Springfield to Mclean today around 11:00 A.M.
Toll was $2.05.
Saw between 40 and 45 cars using the lanes in the southbound (Outer Loop) direction.
Last night on the way downtown for the Caps game I heard on the radio that there had been a serious crash in the general-purpose lanes between Route 29 and Gallows Road that had spilled over into the right lane of the Express Lanes. Anyone know any details? In particular, I'm curious to know what, if any effect, it had on the toll rates.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2013, 03:51:32 PM
Last night on the way downtown for the Caps game I heard on the radio that there had been a serious crash in the general-purpose lanes between Route 29 and Gallows Road that had spilled over into the right lane of the Express Lanes. Anyone know any details? In particular, I'm curious to know what, if any effect, it had on the toll rates.
Why not look up historical toll rates for the approximate time?
Quote from: mtantillo on April 24, 2013, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2013, 03:51:32 PM
Last night on the way downtown for the Caps game I heard on the radio that there had been a serious crash in the general-purpose lanes between Route 29 and Gallows Road that had spilled over into the right lane of the Express Lanes. Anyone know any details? In particular, I'm curious to know what, if any effect, it had on the toll rates.
Why not look up historical toll rates for the approximate time?
D'oh. Good point. Not sure why I didn't think of that. :ded:
Quote from: mtantillo on April 24, 2013, 04:12:37 PM
Why not look up historical toll rates for the approximate time?
Was not aware of that capability. Thanks for pointing it out!
495 Express Lanes southbound entering south of Va. 193 yesterday at 1800 showed $0.45 to Jones Branch;
$2.70 to I-66; and
$7.40 to I-395/I-95.
At 1900, the tolls were $0.35 to Jones Branch; $1.20 to I-66; and $3.95 to I-395/I-95.
However, the user interface is pretty clunky.
WTOP Radio: Alexandria group wants I-95 ramp delayed (http://www.wtop.com/134/3301921/Alexandria-group-fights-I-95-ramp)
QuoteALEXANDRIA, Va. - Virginia Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton met with a group calling for a delay to a ramp that will end the Interstate 95 HOT Lanes in Alexandria.
QuoteThe Concerned Residents of Landmark met with Connaughton, Alexandria Mayor Bill Euille and Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chair Sharon Bulova on Friday about the terminus ramp, which will be located just north of Edsall Road at Turkeycock Run.
QuoteThe ramp will end the HOT Lanes, meaning any vehicles with less than three passengers would have to exit during rush hours.
Quote"VDOT did what they are supposed to do and they ran the project by the Federal Highway Administration," says Connaughton. "The issue really is how to balance out the traffic, if there's a way to do it."
QuoteThe group hired Maureen Barrett, an environmental engineer, to study the toxin levels that the ramp would produce. She found that nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5, or fine particulate matter, would be above acceptable levels on the ramp, partially due to the expected traffic. Those toxins could result in respiratory issues and increased hospitalization.
It's a bit late to be objecting to it when construction is as far along as it is. I understand their displeasure, but the fight should have occurred a lot sooner if they were serious. The City comes across as a bunch of BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 27, 2013, 06:48:00 PM
It's a bit late to be objecting to it when construction is as far along as it is. I understand their displeasure, but the fight should have occurred a lot sooner if they were serious. The City comes across as a bunch of BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).
Well, I can sort of see their point. When they did the original studies, that ramp was not an endpoint ramp, now it is.
But if FHWA approved....
Concerned Residents of Landmark really should be complaining to Arlington County, whose lawsuit led to the HOT lanes ending in Alexandria. Or better still, they should have spoken up during the County's lawsuit, to try to head off the problem they are now complaining about.
Inconveniently, though, IIRC at least one of CRL's lawyers also represented Arlington County in its lawsuit against VDOT, so we should not expect any CRL lawsuit to target Arlington County.
Quote from: oscar on April 27, 2013, 08:31:36 PM
Concerned Residents of Landmark really should be complaining to Arlington County, whose lawsuit led to the HOT lanes ending in Alexandria. Or better still, they should have spoken up during the County's lawsuit, to try to head off the problem they are now complaining about.
Yes,
yes, a thousand times
yes!
Quote from: oscar on April 27, 2013, 08:31:36 PM
Inconveniently, though, IIRC at least one of CRL's lawyers also represented Arlington County in its lawsuit against VDOT, so we should not expect any CRL lawsuit to target Arlington County.
That is correct. Though (IMO) I never thought that Arlington County's arguments would have had much merit in a trial before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (anti-highway lawsuits in federal courts in the 4th Circuit states in recent years have not usually had much success). The only one that met with any sympathy (that I am aware of) was against the Monroeville (N.C.) Bypass, where a 4th Circuit panel ordered a remand for reasons related to air quality.
The people opposed to this project are attempting to raise PM 2.5 as an issue, though I don't see that working, since I-395 is not a favored "through" route for trucking.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 27, 2013, 06:48:00 PM
It's a bit late to be objecting to it when construction is as far along as it is. I understand their displeasure, but the fight should have occurred a lot sooner if they were serious. The City comes across as a bunch of BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).
Agreed. Though Alexandria did finally drop its lawsuit against the reconstructed Wilson Bridge (leaving the Sierra Club to go it alone - their victory in the U.S. District Court (in D.C.) was reversed by the Circuit Court (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8D20D3B4745700985256F15006C78FB/$file/99-5220a.txt) in December 1999, which allowed construction to get started after about 10 years of planning).
And the reconstruction of U.S. 1 to straighten it out at Monroe Avenue (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=u.s.+1+%26+monroe+avenue,+alexandria,+va&hl=en&ll=38.820752,-77.049587&spn=0.009345,0.01929&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.826758,79.013672&t=h&hnear=E+Monroe+Ave+%26+U.S.+1,+Alexandria,+Virginia+22301&z=16) where it crosses the former RF&P Railroad tracks has turned out to be a major improvement.
TOLLROADSnews: How Fluor-Lane widened the 495 Capital Beltway from 8 to 12 lanes INTERVIEW (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6539)
QuoteMaryland officials said recently that any improvements to the Capital Beltway would be nearly impossible given the traffic volumes (over 220,000 vehicles/day) and the need to maintain traffic through the works. Well how did Virginia do it? They've just rebuilt ten interchanges, repaved, and widened from 8 to 12 lanes on 14 miles of the busiest portion of the Beltway between the I-95 Springfield Interchange and through Tysons Corner and the Dulles Toll Road.
QuoteThe work was done by a Fluor-Lane joint venture under a $1.93b design-build contract with Capital Beltway Express LLC, the Transurban-led concessionaire that put up $1.52b. VDOT put up $0.41b. Fluor has a 10% stake in the express toll lanes concession.
QuoteWe recently talked to Bob Portley, the Fluor-Lane joint venture's deputy project director for field operations in charge of the nearly five years of Beltway work. (With completion of the Beltway work he has returned to Lane Construction where he is District Manager working out of Chantilly Virginia.)
I won't include a link to this first item because of reports of malware issues affecting Internet Explorer users who visit their website: WTOP reports Transurban requested that VDOT raise the speed limit in the 495 Express Lanes to 65 mph and VDOT is considering the request. Sounds like a good move to me, although I'd prefer 70 mph (which state law allows). No word on when they might decide. I can't really blame them for starting with a lower limit and then considering an increase instead of starting with a higher one and then lowering it, especially when the barrier on the right side of the lanes (plastic bollards) is quite different (and potentially more distracting at night due to the reflective tape on the bollards) than others we've seen in the DC area over the years.
This second item was quite a surprise to me: A bill was introduced this year to allow an 80-mph speed limit on toll roads in Virginia, including HO/T lanes, and the bill would also have eliminated the "or in excess of 80 mph" part of the reckless driving law. (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?131+ful+HB1949) Not surprisingly, it was left in committee. I don't see Virginia allowing any 80-mph speed limits any time soon, but I think the "or in excess of 80 mph" provision ought to be scrapped because I think it's asinine to prosecute someone going 81 mph in a 70-mph zone for reckless driving based solely on speed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 08, 2013, 03:51:32 PM
I won't include a link to this first item because of reports of malware issues affecting Internet Explorer users who visit their website: WTOP reports Transurban requested that VDOT raise the speed limit in the 495 Express Lanes to 65 mph and VDOT is considering the request. Sounds like a good move to me, although I'd prefer 70 mph (which state law allows). No word on when they might decide. I can't really blame them for starting with a lower limit and then considering an increase instead of starting with a higher one and then lowering it, especially when the barrier on the right side of the lanes (plastic bollards) is quite different (and potentially more distracting at night due to the reflective tape on the bollards) than others we've seen in the DC area over the years.
65 or 70 would be fine in those lanes.
Though I could see some of the usual-suspect groups raising objections (probably related to air quality).
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 08, 2013, 03:51:32 PM
This second item was quite a surprise to me: A bill was introduced this year to allow an 80-mph speed limit on toll roads in Virginia, including HO/T lanes, and the bill would also have eliminated the "or in excess of 80 mph" part of the reckless driving law. (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?131+ful+HB1949) Not surprisingly, it was left in committee. I don't see Virginia allowing any 80-mph speed limits any time soon, but I think the "or in excess of 80 mph" provision ought to be scrapped because I think it's asinine to prosecute someone going 81 mph in a 70-mph zone for reckless driving based solely on speed.
I believe I have driven all toll roads and toll crossings in the Commonwealth, except the Gilmerton Bridge, which is not a freeway-class road anyway.
Not sure that any of them ought to have a posted speed limit that high.
Especially not the Dulles Greenway, which has curves that are too sharp for most people to handle safely on a consistent bases when going that fast.
The road that could be posted with a limit that high is I-295, especially between I-64 (on the east side of Richmond, near Sandston) and I-95 just south of Petersburg in Prince George County. Added bonus - an 80 MPH posted limit might put an end to the Hopewell speed trap operation.
EDIT: Made references to the I-64 and I-95 interchanges with I-295 specific.
Quote from: cpzilliacus
The road that could be posted with a limit that high is I-295, especially between I-64 and I-95. Added bonus - an 80 MPH posted limit might put an end to the Hopewell speed trap operation.
Isn't all of I-295 between I-64 and I-95? ;-)
Quote from: mtantillo on May 11, 2013, 12:22:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus
The road that could be posted with a limit that high is I-295, especially between I-64 and I-95. Added bonus - an 80 MPH posted limit might put an end to the Hopewell speed trap operation.
Isn't all of I-295 between I-64 and I-95? ;-)
Yes, of course it is. I should have been more specific.
And I will be in just a moment thanks to the "modify" feature.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2013, 06:32:06 PM
I believe I have driven all toll roads and toll crossings in the Commonwealth, except the Gilmerton Bridge, which is not a freeway-class road anyway.
Not sure that any of them ought to have a posted speed limit that high. Especially not the Dulles Greenway, which has curves that are too sharp for most people to handle safely on a consistent bases when going that fast.
Perhaps you mean the Jordan Bridge instead of the Gilmerton? The Gilmerton is a non-tolled bridge on US 13, while the South Norfolk Jordan Bridge is a toll bridge on VA 337 that crosses the Elizabeth River further north.
Quote from: maplestar on May 12, 2013, 04:01:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2013, 06:32:06 PM
I believe I have driven all toll roads and toll crossings in the Commonwealth, except the Gilmerton Bridge, which is not a freeway-class road anyway.
Not sure that any of them ought to have a posted speed limit that high. Especially not the Dulles Greenway, which has curves that are too sharp for most people to handle safely on a consistent bases when going that fast.
Perhaps you mean the Jordan Bridge instead of the Gilmerton? The Gilmerton is a non-tolled bridge on US 13, while the South Norfolk Jordan Bridge is a toll bridge on VA 337 that crosses the Elizabeth River further north.
Yes, I did. Been a lot of years since I visited Hampton Roads.
The South Norfolk Jordan is the one I was thinking about.
[
This has specific references to the HOV/Toll lanes in Northern Virginia]
TOLLROADSnews: Toll express lanes can get investment grade ratings but it will be tough - Moody's (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6545)
QuoteNegative on 495ELs
The Moody's report stresses the VA495ELs as "well below" the first year's target:
"We believe that the underperformance of the HOT lanes reflects soft economic conditions in the service area, which results in motorists being unwilling to pay a toll for time savings. The original traffic study was done before 2008, and projections may not be achievable given that they did not consider the impact of the economic recession.
I agree with the statement by Fluor/Transurban in that article that the "pipe" design was undesirable on the Beltway because the majority of the traffic on that side of the Beltway is not thru traffic from Springfield all the way to the Legion Bridge (or vice versa).
The Washington Post reports that VDOT approved the 65-mph speed limit in the Beltway Express Lanes and that signs should be changed on or about June 24.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/06/07/speed-limit-going-up-on-495-express-lanes/
WTOP reports on the speed limit increase and notes that the 85th percentile speed is 70 mph: http://wtop.com/654/3351447/Faster-ride-on-Beltway-Express-Lanes
The 65 mph shields have been uncovered on the 495 Express Lanes...
Not bad for a road with no shoulders (left or right) for 95% of it and how many freeways have you seen where on ramps from both sides converge at the same spot along with a left exit ramp very nearby (SB approaching VA 7) have a speed limit of 65?
http://goo.gl/maps/YoZvJ (http://goo.gl/maps/YoZvJ)
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 24, 2013, 06:48:28 AM
The 65 mph shields have been uncovered on the 495 Express Lanes...
Not bad for a road with no shoulders (left or right) for 95% of it and how many freeways have you seen where on ramps from both sides converge at the same spot along with a left exit ramp very nearby (SB approaching VA 7) have a speed limit of 65?
http://goo.gl/maps/YoZvJ (http://goo.gl/maps/YoZvJ)
I saw the new 65 signs as well.
Had to drive from Springfield to Va. 123 in the 8 A.M. hour today, and for the first time, I feel the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes
actually looked busy! Toll to go all the way from the southern entrance between Springfield and the north end beyond Va. 267 was $6.70 (that's the highest I have seen it so far).
WTOP Radio: Speed limit increased on Virginia's Express Lanes (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=3368343)
TOLLROADSnews: Capital Beltway toll lanes carrying more traffic faster (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6598)
TOLLROADSnews: 495 Capital beltway toll lanes see leap in traffic & $s in June quarter from weak first months (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6630)
Quote2013-07-09: The high profile toll lanes project on the DC Capital Beltway saw a major leap in traffic and revenue in the June quarter according to data released to the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) by Transurban, the concessionaire. Toll revenue increased 82% on the March quarter with an increase of 38% in average weekday traffic and a 32% higher in the average toll.
QuoteRevenue in the latest quarter was running at an annual rate of $29m vs $16m in the first quarter.
QuoteWorkday traffic was running 35,000 trips per day Q1 vs 26,300 Q2. Average daily traffic (including weekends) in the June quarter was 28,900 vs 21,000 in the March quarter.
QuoteThe average toll - which is set dynamically based on density in the lanes and tolls needed to maximize revenues while providing a guaranteed minimum 45mph trip - went from $2.10 to $2.78, by our estimates.
QuoteThe release to the ASX says that the last workday of the June quarter saw record traffic - 42,998 trips and $78k revenue. That traffic number suggests continuing strong growth through the quarter, although the annualized revenue number is down slightly on the quarterly average.
Quote92% of traffic is tollpaying, Transurban says.
Dr. Gridlock of the Washington Post: More drivers use Beltway express lanes, report says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/07/10/more-drivers-use-beltway-express-lanes-report-says/)
QuoteAs a long-time Beltway driver, I had a pretty good idea what lay ahead, so I chose the express lanes. But I've heard from many drivers who aren't prepared to make that choice. Those who do choose the express lanes sometimes write in to say they "guessed wrong" because they didn't notice much traffic in the regular lanes. (It's one of those few consumer choices where you can see exactly what you would have gotten had you selected the competitor.)
QuoteOn Tuesday afternoon, the wisdom of my choice wasn't confirmed till I was in the last mile and a half of the 14-mile trip. The regular lanes in Tysons were stop-and-go. I cruised by them at 65 mph, the new speed limit for the express lanes.
QuoteThen I got to one of the other bothersome things about the express lanes: They end. North of the Dulles Toll Road, I had to merge back into the Beltway's heavily congested regular lanes.
I'm curious what the signage experts on this forum think about the situation shown in the video below (click to play). The question is–should the truck driver receive a ticket? A fellow who posts in Dr. Gridlock's blog at the Washington Post contends that signs restricting lane usage based on number of axles are unenforceable as a matter of law. I rather suspect his argument would get nowhere in Fairfax Circuit Court, but I'm wondering what anyone else has to say.
(I'm a novice at video editing, so apologies in advance for the slight choppiness at times. I think the software altered the fps rate from what my dashcam uses.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FDashcam%2520videos%2Fth_TruckExpressLanes_zpsfa8b5d6d.jpg&hash=07897646349d6b46bf77068e95c09b6ba153a8f8) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Dashcam%20videos/TruckExpressLanes_zpsfa8b5d6d.mp4)
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2013, 04:36:34 PM
I'm curious what the signage experts on this forum think about the situation shown in the video below (click to play). The question is–should the truck driver receive a ticket? A fellow who posts in Dr. Gridlock's blog at the Washington Post contends that signs restricting lane usage based on number of axles are unenforceable as a matter of law. I rather suspect his argument would get nowhere in Fairfax Circuit Court, but I'm wondering what anyone else has to say.
I have seen tractor trailers stopped by the VSP - more than once - on the I-495 HOV/toll lanes.
The signs are plenty clear enough.
IMO,
guilty of violating § 46.2-830 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-830) of the Code of Virginia.
Relevant part of § 46.2-830:
QuoteAll drivers of vehicles shall obey lawfully erected traffic control devices.
I've seen them stopped as well, and from that driver's behavior I think he realized he was in the wrong place. My question is more in a general sense–is a restriction based on number of axles valid and enforceable? I don't know why it wouldn't be, especially when toll rates are often set on that basis, but the other guy was pretty adamant when he posted about it in the past (username "Russtinator," FWIW; he hasn't commented recently, but in general he was one of the more reasonable and knowledgeable people who commented there).
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2013, 05:52:27 PM
I've seen them stopped as well, and from that driver's behavior I think he realized he was in the wrong place. My question is more in a general sense–is a restriction based on number of axles valid and enforceable? I don't know why it wouldn't be, especially when toll rates are often set on that basis, but the other guy was pretty adamant when he posted about it in the past (username "Russtinator," FWIW; he hasn't commented recently, but in general he was one of the more reasonable and knowledgeable people who commented there).
It's entirely enforceable. Obviously, it's a state or even municipal-level code, but if you can restrict roads by vehicle weight and height, why not other characteristics like number of axles?
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2013, 05:52:27 PM
I've seen them stopped as well, and from that driver's behavior I think he realized he was in the wrong place. My question is more in a general sense–is a restriction based on number of axles valid and enforceable?
Yes, Steve is absolutely correct. States can (and do) enforce the number of axles allowed (or not allowed, as the case might be).
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2013, 05:52:27 PM
I don't know why it wouldn't be, especially when toll rates are often set on that basis, but the other guy was pretty adamant when he posted about it in the past (username "Russtinator," FWIW; he hasn't commented recently, but in general he was one of the more reasonable and knowledgeable people who commented there).
Governments that run the transportation infrastructure
must be able to restrict the number of axles in order to protect that infrastructure. D.C.-area case in point - MacArthur Boulevard in Montgomery County, Md. between Great Falls and the D.C. line at Dalecarlia Reservoir. It is posted to only allow motor vehicles with four wheels (or less) to use the road.
Why is this? Because the Washington Aqueduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Aqueduct), built in the mid-1800's by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (and still owned and operated by the Army) to supply drinking water to the District of Columbia, runs underneath. In addition to the aqueduct under MacArthur Boulevard, the low limit is in place to protect the massive (and magnificent) Union Arch Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Arch_Bridge) which carries the aqueduct (and MacArthur Boulevard) over Cabin John Creek (and since the 1960's, the Cabin John Parkway, "secret" Md. 495X).
Water that flows through the Aqueduct is delivered to customers in D.C. and Northern Virginia (but not Maryland, even though very nearly all of the Aqueduct is in Maryland). The only "customer" of the Aqueduct in Maryland is the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carderock_Division_of_the_Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center), which uses raw water to fill the several large model basins (details here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Taylor_Model_Basin)) on its reservation.
Quote from: Steve on July 10, 2013, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2013, 05:52:27 PM
I've seen them stopped as well, and from that driver's behavior I think he realized he was in the wrong place. My question is more in a general senseis a restriction based on number of axles valid and enforceable? I don't know why it wouldn't be, especially when toll rates are often set on that basis, but the other guy was pretty adamant when he posted about it in the past (username "Russtinator," FWIW; he hasn't commented recently, but in general he was one of the more reasonable and knowledgeable people who commented there).
It's entirely enforceable. Obviously, it's a state or even municipal-level code, but if you can restrict roads by vehicle weight and height, why not other characteristics like number of axles?
In Virginia, there has to be a law backing up a regulatory sign (that whole "lawfully posted" thing). So no, you cannot just go posting regulatory signs that conflict with state laws. Somewhere there's a law to back that up.
I think axles are a better way to restrict traffic than by vehicle weight, just in that there is no way a driver should not know how many axles on his vehicle, whereas he might not know how much his loaded vehicle weighs at any given time. Georgia and South Carolina sign the "left lane restrictions" based on the number of wheels..."no trucks over 6 wheels in left lane". Guess each "dualy" axle counts as 4 wheels.
QuoteIn Virginia, there has to be a law backing up a regulatory sign (that whole "lawfully posted" thing). So no, you cannot just go posting regulatory signs that conflict with state laws. Somewhere there's a law to back that up.
Given that the I-64 Reversible HOV lanes in Norfolk have been signed "No Trucks" for years, I presume there's some sort of law on the books that would allow VDOT to restrict truck traffic.
Quote from: froggie on July 12, 2013, 07:09:00 AM
QuoteIn Virginia, there has to be a law backing up a regulatory sign (that whole "lawfully posted" thing). So no, you cannot just go posting regulatory signs that conflict with state laws. Somewhere there's a law to back that up.
Given that the I-64 Reversible HOV lanes in Norfolk have been signed "No Trucks" for years, I presume there's some sort of law on the books that would allow VDOT to restrict truck traffic.
And strangely, the HOV lanes on I-95/I-395 have not restricted trucks since HOV-4 traffic was first allowed in the 1970's - though trucks must comply with the HOV restriction during the time that those are in effect.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 11, 2013, 09:09:28 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 10, 2013, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2013, 05:52:27 PM
I've seen them stopped as well, and from that driver's behavior I think he realized he was in the wrong place. My question is more in a general sense–is a restriction based on number of axles valid and enforceable? I don't know why it wouldn't be, especially when toll rates are often set on that basis, but the other guy was pretty adamant when he posted about it in the past (username "Russtinator," FWIW; he hasn't commented recently, but in general he was one of the more reasonable and knowledgeable people who commented there).
It's entirely enforceable. Obviously, it's a state or even municipal-level code, but if you can restrict roads by vehicle weight and height, why not other characteristics like number of axles?
In Virginia, there has to be a law backing up a regulatory sign (that whole "lawfully posted" thing). So no, you cannot just go posting regulatory signs that conflict with state laws. Somewhere there's a law to back that up.
That makes sense. I don't think a judge would be too enthused about convicting someone for a traffic violation for disregarding a sign that was effectively illegal.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 11, 2013, 09:09:28 PM
I think axles are a better way to restrict traffic than by vehicle weight, just in that there is no way a driver should not know how many axles on his vehicle, whereas he might not know how much his loaded vehicle weighs at any given time. Georgia and South Carolina sign the "left lane restrictions" based on the number of wheels..."no trucks over 6 wheels in left lane". Guess each "dualy" axle counts as 4 wheels.
Agreed that axles are a better way to restrict trucks. Clear and not usually ambiguous (though it could be in the case of trucks (usually dump trucks and trash trucks) with "drop" axles).
I have seen the truck restrictions on I-26 in Charleston and also on I-95 in Florence.
I have driven in Georgia, but I don't recall that sort of signage there.
A dually is going to be 6 wheels, but such trucks don't usually have any problem keeping up with fast-moving traffic. But if they are pulling a big trailer, then they don't always run quite as fast.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2013, 03:31:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 12, 2013, 07:09:00 AM
QuoteIn Virginia, there has to be a law backing up a regulatory sign (that whole "lawfully posted" thing). So no, you cannot just go posting regulatory signs that conflict with state laws. Somewhere there's a law to back that up.
Given that the I-64 Reversible HOV lanes in Norfolk have been signed "No Trucks" for years, I presume there's some sort of law on the books that would allow VDOT to restrict truck traffic.
And strangely, the HOV lanes on I-95/I-395 have not restricted trucks since HOV-4 traffic was first allowed in the 1970's - though trucks must comply with the HOV restriction during the time that those are in effect.
Except, of course, at their current southern end, where trucks are not permitted because they have to pass through the weigh station accessible solely from the general-purpose lanes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 12, 2013, 03:56:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2013, 03:31:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 12, 2013, 07:09:00 AM
QuoteIn Virginia, there has to be a law backing up a regulatory sign (that whole "lawfully posted" thing). So no, you cannot just go posting regulatory signs that conflict with state laws. Somewhere there's a law to back that up.
Given that the I-64 Reversible HOV lanes in Norfolk have been signed "No Trucks" for years, I presume there's some sort of law on the books that would allow VDOT to restrict truck traffic.
And strangely, the HOV lanes on I-95/I-395 have not restricted trucks since HOV-4 traffic was first allowed in the 1970's - though trucks must comply with the HOV restriction during the time that those are in effect.
Except, of course, at their current southern end, where trucks are not permitted because they have to pass through the weigh station accessible solely from the general-purpose lanes.
Yeah, though (at least for now) it is essentially impossible for the Virginia State Police to catch up to and stop scale evaders on the southbound side of I-95, since it is darned near impossible for a police car to reach that side from the scalehouse on the northbound side.
[
Mostly about the I-95 HOV/Toll lanes project]
Dr. Gridlock in the Washington Post: Don't spend your summer in I-95 traffic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/dont-spend-your-summer-in-i-95-traffic/2013/07/13/3df6712c-e988-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html)
QuoteA stretch of heavily traveled highway in Northern Virginia has become one of the longest work zones in the nation this summer.
QuoteAbout 1,500 workers are turning a 29-mile section of Interstate 95 into the state's latest high-occupancy toll lane project. The long-term impact on commuting in the D.C. region is likely to be enormous, but the short-term effects of summer travel also will be significant.
If the NJ Turnpike can keep traffic moving without a problem in a major construction zone, I'd think Flour can.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 14, 2013, 01:25:41 PM
If the NJ Turnpike can keep traffic moving without a problem in a major construction zone, I'd think Flour can.
Conditions are different on I-95 in Northern Virginia.
The HOV/Toll lanes have been there for many years, and they have almost always provided additional (non-restricted) lane capacity in the peak-flow direction on weekends and holidays. Usually southbound on Saturdays and northbound on Sundays. With this project going on, those lanes are frequently closed all weekend, effectively removing a fair amount of "extra" capacity that motorists have gotten used to having, regardless of how many people in the car (since HOV restrictions in this corridor never apply on weekends and holidays - and even on weekdays, they expire at 6 P.M.).
Only the segment between Va. 610 (Garrisonville Road, Exit 143) and Va. 234 (Dumfries Road, Exit 152) is remotely like the New Jersey Turnpike widening project between 6 and 8A. Unlike the Turnpike's project, where much of the work is taking place adjacent to but mostly beyond the existing 6 lanes of Turnpike, nearly all of the Fluor/Transurban work is in the (former) median of I-95 (which was designed with a generously wide median from the start).
WAMU Radio: Alexandria And Fairfax County Residents Give Up Fight Against I-95 Ramp (http://wamu.org/news/13/08/21/alexandria_and_fairfax_county_residents_give_up_fight_against_i_95_ramp)
So what's the verdict on the HOT lanes in northern VA? Not from the tollers perspective...I'm more interested in the quality of life enhancements.
Sounds like it has helped if you are willing to pay a toll, but is off peak traffic any better with the complete rebuild of the general purpose lanes?
I say yes, it is a little better in the general purpose lanes.
I've noticed the past few times I've headed towards Falls Church or Fair Oaks that the toll rates seem to have risen a bit again, with the run from Springfield to I-66 now apparently having a base rate of $1.50. Last week I paid $1.15 each way from Springfield to Route 29 (this per checking my online statement, since that particular trip's rate is never posted on the signs). It used to be 90¢ for that trip. I wonder if the higher rates are a function of increased use or whether something else is in play. It does seem to me that more people are using the Express Lanes but that traffic in them is still what I'd consider quite light.
I haven't had to drive on that part of the Beltway in rush hour in a while and so have no opinion about general-purpose lane traffic. (My trips in the general-purpose lanes lately have only been from Springfield to Route 236 anyway, which is a pretty short distance.)
Pretty sure the rates have gone up again...the price at 5:30 a.m. never drops below $2.35 for the full trip anymore.
As for whether the HOT lanes have improved the mainline's quality of life, the answer is yes. However, some of this is attributable to no longer having lanes closed throughout the workday that cause clogs that wouldn't clear by rush hour.
In the afternoon (4:45) the Outer Loop is generally moving well from VA 193 to I-66 followed by a slow stretch to Gallows Rd then open again to I-95/395.
The inner loop in the afternoon is still pretty terrible from VA 123 to the American Legion Bridge on a daily basis, which is to be expected until lanes are added to the I-270 split someday.
I travel too early in the morning to comment on how morning rush is doing...
Mapmikey
One other thought....while I normally use the Express Lanes to go to Tysons, my observation as I go through the area from I-66 to Route 7 (which I haven't done at rush hour in several months) is that the general-purpose lanes look a lot saner through there than they used to because of the reconstructed I-66 interchange. Probably the single biggest improvement on the Beltway as a result of this entire project was the redesign of the ramps from I-66 to the Beltway so that traffic now merges on the right instead of on the left. This is true for both sides of the Beltway, but it's more noticeable on the Inner Loop because so many people go from I-66 to Route 7. They no longer have to cut all the way across the Beltway in order to exit.
The removal of the left-lane exit from the Inner Loop to westbound I-66 is also a huge improvement because it eliminates the problem of drivers coming from US-50 who persisted in forcing their way across all four lanes to the left-side ramp instead of using the right-side exit as they were supposed to do. There are still some people who rely blindly on their sat-navs who get confused by the left-side exit being closed (they're easy to spot as they slow abruptly in the leftmost general-purpose lane looking for a nonexistent exit), but that's an issue of driver error and not a problem with the road's design.
The road is certainly in much better condition than it used to be. The general-purpose lanes now have reflectors augmenting the lane striping, which is a big improvement at night.
I definitely find myself sniggering at the idiots who wanted to declare the entire project a failure due to the crashes on the first three days the lanes were open last November. So many idiots seem to think a single day's experience is conclusive proof that something is a failure (though had the lanes been a smashing success on those days they'd have instead looked for ways to denigrate them). I haven't heard any reports of accidents at the lanes' beginning point in a good long time now.
The base toll rate must now have some kind of time of day function in it now. Late at night (11PM) you can still pay $2.05 for the whole length.
But during normal hours, I have seen $2.50 as the price "floor".
Quote from: mtantillo on October 01, 2013, 08:32:39 PM
The base toll rate must now have some kind of time of day function in it now. Late at night (11PM) you can still pay $2.05 for the whole length.
But during normal hours, I have seen $2.50 as the price "floor".
Last spring, I saw the full trip rate (in the overnight hours) as low as $1.05 or maybe $1.35.
At the WDCITE meeting, one of the Transurban managers said the prime goal in setting the toll (aside from collecting revenue) is to meet their contractual obligation that the speeds in those lanes never fall below 45 MPH (so far, they have not come close to that).
Hoo: the addition of auxiliary lanes between 66 and Route 7 hasn't hurt either...
Quote from: froggie on October 02, 2013, 02:00:06 AM
Hoo: the addition of auxiliary lanes between 66 and Route 7 hasn't hurt either...
Very true. I didn't mention that only because it's harder to observe that new lane's effect from the Express Lanes than it is to see the reduced amount of lane-weaving.
Quote from: froggie on October 02, 2013, 02:00:06 AM
Hoo: the addition of auxiliary lanes between 66 and Route 7 hasn't hurt either...
This is only true on the inner loop. For some reason they did not do this on the outer loop.
When I-66 WB backs up to the point that it backs up onto the outer loop, the lack of an auxiliary lane causes the beltway experience to be worse as there are plenty of people getting on the inner loop from VA 7 EB.
I also agree the inner loop reconfiguration at I-66 is a tremendous success. Even at 5:45 in the morning there was a tremendous amount of zig-zagging across all lanes between US 50 and VA 7 under the old configuration.
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 02, 2013, 07:49:42 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 02, 2013, 02:00:06 AM
Hoo: the addition of auxiliary lanes between 66 and Route 7 hasn't hurt either...
This is only true on the inner loop. For some reason they did not do this on the outer loop.
When I-66 WB backs up to the point that it backs up onto the outer loop, the lack of an auxiliary lane causes the beltway experience to be worse as there are plenty of people getting on the inner loop from VA 7 EB.
I also agree the inner loop reconfiguration at I-66 is a tremendous success. Even at 5:45 in the morning there was a tremendous amount of zig-zagging across all lanes between US 50 and VA 7 under the old configuration.
Mapmikey
The last thing you would ever want to do is push more traffic onto I-66 via an extra Beltway lane. 66 is bad enough. The ramp is long enough where 66 backups onto 495 are less common than they used to be.
Quote from: mtantillo on October 02, 2013, 10:35:23 AM
The last thing you would ever want to do is push more traffic onto I-66 via an extra Beltway lane. 66 is bad enough. The ramp is long enough where 66 backups onto 495 are less common than they used to be.
IMO, the
first thing I would like to do with I-66 between U.S. 50 and Fair Oaks and I-495 is
widen it,
or to impose pricing on all lanes and then widen it with the resulting revenue.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 02, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on October 02, 2013, 10:35:23 AM
The last thing you would ever want to do is push more traffic onto I-66 via an extra Beltway lane. 66 is bad enough. The ramp is long enough where 66 backups onto 495 are less common than they used to be.
IMO, the first thing I would like to do with I-66 between U.S. 50 and Fair Oaks and I-495 is widen it, or to impose pricing on all lanes and then widen it with the resulting revenue.
I'd like to see some kind of two-lane express roadway in each direction with no exits between the Beltway and at least Fair Oaks. Not necessarily an HOV or HO/T roadway, either, just some sort of express roadway that would segregate the local and longer-distance traffic (similar, I suppose, to the Wilson Bridge or I-270 but without any opportunity for traffic to exit to or from the express roadway). If the system were to extend further west I would allow for a crossover system, perhaps similar to Toronto's Basketweave, to allow for access to and from the Fairfax County Parkway.
Of course, I recognize the massive impracticality of that due to the space limitations and the even more astronomical cost of double-decking the highway.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 02, 2013, 12:54:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 02, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on October 02, 2013, 10:35:23 AM
The last thing you would ever want to do is push more traffic onto I-66 via an extra Beltway lane. 66 is bad enough. The ramp is long enough where 66 backups onto 495 are less common than they used to be.
IMO, the first thing I would like to do with I-66 between U.S. 50 and Fair Oaks and I-495 is widen it, or to impose pricing on all lanes and then widen it with the resulting revenue.
I'd like to see some kind of two-lane express roadway in each direction with no exits between the Beltway and at least Fair Oaks. Not necessarily an HOV or HO/T roadway, either, just some sort of express roadway that would segregate the local and longer-distance traffic (similar, I suppose, to the Wilson Bridge or I-270 but without any opportunity for traffic to exit to or from the express roadway). If the system were to extend further west I would allow for a crossover system, perhaps similar to Toronto's Basketweave, to allow for access to and from the Fairfax County Parkway.
That would be an excellent idea. I think the traffic is there to support such an improvement, even if it were tolled.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 02, 2013, 12:54:48 PM
Of course, I recognize the massive impracticality of that due to the space limitations and the even more astronomical cost of double-decking the highway.
Yeah, the right-of-way constraints on I-66 in Fairfax County between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495 are pretty bad. And a median viaduct similar to the one on I-110 (Harbor Freeway) in Los Angeles County is big money, made even more complex by the presence of the Orange Line in the median.
TOLLROADSnews: Capital beltway toll express lanes traffic and revenue grows in 3rd quarter of operation but growth slower (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6774)
Quote2013-10-09: Transurban's US showpiece 495 Express Lanes showed continued growth in traffic and revenue in their third quarter of operation, but a quiet summer (July and most of August) slowed growth of patronage compared to the June quarter's big surge on the slow first full quarter of operation.
QuoteAverage workday traffic rose in the September to 37.6k from 35.0K in the June quarter and 26.3k in the March quarter. On this trajectory traffic in the last quarter could be around 41k which would make a whole year's 35k. The Stantec investment-grade traffic and revenue forecast dated February 2007 projected the first full year would produce 66k average workday trips (p5 Table 1), so it would turn out about half that - a shortfall of 47% on the guess of 41k for the final quarter of this year.
As I recall, the MIS that was done about 10 years ago suggested a 2-lane, barrier-separated, reversible HOV facility on 66 between the Beltway and at least Fair Oaks (I believe it went further west).
It should also be noted that, per the origin-destination study that was part of the Tier 1 Draft EIS earlier this year, over half the traffic that's on I-66 at the Beltway either got on from or is exiting to Nutley, 123, or 50/Fair Oaks, with half of that (so a quarter overall) to/from Nutley St alone. Which such a reversible roadway with no ramps between Fair Oaks and the Beltway would help those coming from further west, it's of limited benefit to half of the I-66 traffic at the Beltway.
Farther west, there are also large volumes of traffic that enter EB/exit WB at 28 and exit EB/enter WB at Fairfax County Pkwy.
I believe we've also discussed this ad nauseum in another thread.
Quote from: froggie on October 11, 2013, 02:29:23 AM
As I recall, the MIS that was done about 10 years ago suggested a 2-lane, barrier-separated, reversible HOV facility on 66 between the Beltway and at least Fair Oaks (I believe it went further west).
I believe that work was done with the discredited "Dulles" travel demand forecasting model - the only project it was ever used on except for Dulles Rail.
Still, that would be a huge improvement over what is there now - but would require some pretty expensive ramps to connect to the the HOV/Toll lanes at I-495.
Quote from: froggie on October 11, 2013, 02:29:23 AM
It should also be noted that, per the origin-destination study that was part of the Tier 1 Draft EIS earlier this year, over half the traffic that's on I-66 at the Beltway either got on from or is exiting to Nutley, 123, or 50/Fair Oaks, with half of that (so a quarter overall) to/from Nutley St alone. Which such a reversible roadway with no ramps between Fair Oaks and the Beltway would help those coming from further west, it's of limited benefit to half of the I-66 traffic at the Beltway.
Removing traffic from the overcrowded conventional lanes would still help everyone using that corridor.
Quote from: froggie on October 11, 2013, 02:29:23 AM
Farther west, there are also large volumes of traffic that enter EB/exit WB at 28 and exit EB/enter WB at Fairfax County Pkwy.
And that is likely where there will be more growth in the future.
TOLLROADSnews: 495 Express Lanes went to financing in 2010 with boom-time forecasts from mid-decade - huge $-shortfall now (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6775)
QuoteThe 495 Express Lanes went to the capital markets at the end of 2010 using the same traffic and revenue forecasting done four and five years earlier in the boom times of 2005 and 2006. Seeking $589m of 2047 senior lien 35-year bonds in mid-December 2010 we now know they based their financial plan on the same Stantec traffic and revenue forecasts published February 2007 and conducted in the pre-recession years 2005 and 2006.
QuoteThe end-2010 Offering Statement for the bonds simply takes the Stantec forecasts and inflates the revenue numbers from 2004-$s to nominal or current year $s. This made their forecast for toll revenue for 2013 $54.7m.
QuoteWe reported from the Stantec Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue forecast in 2007 toll revenue in the first year of operation as $46.1m. Those were 2004-$s.
QuoteThe outlines of the financial plan for the 495 Express Lanes at financial close are shown in a one page Debt Service Coverage Table (S-17) 2013 to 2047.
QuoteWe've summarized some of the main numbers given through 2020 in the table nearby.
QuoteTolls for 2013 were put at $54.7m, other revenues such as penalty payments $5.5m for total revenue of $60.2m. Against that are operating expenses put at $31.3m for an operating surplus of $28.8m. Debt service is $23m so there's a small cash flow of $5.9m projected to lenders.
Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock: I-95 HOT lanes will be a new experience with tolling for some (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/10/16/i-95-hot-lanes-will-be-a-new-experience-with-tolling-for-some/)
QuoteThe 95 Express Lanes project, a 29-mile road work zone in Northern Virginia, is half done and on schedule to be finished by late 2014, Virginia officials say. The high-occupancy toll lanes in the middle of Interstate 95 should open to traffic in early 2015.
QuoteI've made a distinction in previous postings between tolling new lanes, like the HOT lanes the Capital Beltway, and tolling existing lanes – the sort of thing that Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation has proposed to finance the rebuilding and upgrading of our entire Interstate system. Drivers hate to pay tolls, but they're more accepting of tolls if it's for something new, an element that Poole takes into account in his proposal.
WTOP Radio: High tolls hit some express lane motorists by surprise (http://www.wtop.com/120/3494329/Toll-shock-on-Beltway-Express-Lanes)
QuoteALEXANDRIA, Va. - It's been a question since the 495 Express Lanes were first proposed on the Beltway in Virginia: How much will people be willing to pay to save time?
QuoteWednesday morning put that question to the test.
QuoteThe rain made the morning commute along the Capital Beltway slow and dreary. For many drivers, the faster ride on the Express Lanes may have looked enticing -- until they saw the toll rate.
QuoteAlexandria resident Brian Downey tweeted his surprise at the $9.50 toll.
It says he saw the $9.50 toll and decided not to use the lanes. That seems to indicate the system is working exactly the way it's supposed to work.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 30, 2013, 03:50:12 PM
It says he saw the $9.50 toll and decided not to use the lanes. That seems to indicate the system is working exactly the way it's supposed to work.
Agreed. The whole point of these lanes is to keep them running at 45 MPH or better, no matter what happens in the adjacent non-managed lanes.
The question is, were there any cars in the lanes or was it a ghost town?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 30, 2013, 04:49:25 PM
The question is, were there any cars in the lanes or was it a ghost town?
Beats me. I didn't have to go that way this morning. But remember the cited figure was the toll to drive the entire distance. If you exit at an earlier point, the toll will be lower, possibly by a significant amount. I believe I heard on the radio in my semi-groggy state after waking up this morning that there was a serious accident in the Beltway's general-purpose lanes near the Dulles exit, which is a mile or so south of the Express Lanes' northern end. That means the main incentive to use the lanes would be for people at the northern end heading to Maryland or the GW Parkway–they'd want to bypass the accident. So if you were driving from, say, Springfield to Merrifield (US-29), the toll might conceivably be a lot lower than the $9.50 if there's less likelihood of the lanes being congested in that area (although, from what I found on their website just now, that was not the case at 8:00 this morning).
The thing that is difficult for people in the DC area to understand about those lanes is that the system is supposed to ensure they're NOT congested (as cpzilliacus notes). I think it's quite understandable why people see the lanes flowing freely and assume that means "nobody's using them" or that "not enough" people are using them. We're conditioned to see free-flowing roads in a busy metropolitan area as being under-utilized, especially when the adjacent "free" Beltway lanes are often at a near standstill. But the variable-rate toll system is supposed to keep the Express Lanes moving. By raising the toll, they price out people who aren't willing to pay, and in turn other people who are willing to pay (or who meet the HOV requirements) get a faster ride.
Don't know whether I've posted it previously, but here was my video from a Monday morning in July. Traffic out in the "free" lanes was a lot lighter then compared to what's typical in October.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FDashcam%2520videos%2Fth_2013-07-15AMHOTlanes_zpsff58f6d1.jpg&hash=c5cf8101d22809228c9653b509a5727bb002fbe0) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Dashcam%20videos/2013-07-15AMHOTlanes_zpsff58f6d1.mp4)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 30, 2013, 04:49:25 PM
The question is, were there any cars in the lanes or was it a ghost town?
I would assume, given that the system is
heavily instrumented and monitored, that if the toll was that high, there was plenty of traffic in them.
My own casual observation has been that when the toll in the afternoons SB is between $4.50-5.50, it is still pretty wide open in the HOT lanes and 65 mph is achievable.
I have not witnessed a toll over $7 so I have no observations about the volume of the HOT lanes at that point.
It appears to me the toll rises at the least little addition to traffic on the HOT lanes. My own conspiracy theory is that if the toll is low, drivers think the regular lanes must be free-flowing (or nearly so) and won't use the lanes, so the tolls rise quickly giving people the thought that the regular lanes must have problems so they feel the need to use the toll lanes which are now at higher rates.
But I have definitely seen the toll in the $5 range when the regular lanes were still pretty good throughout.
Another thing to try to watch for this holiday season...suppose lots of people use the toll lanes to get to the Tyson's exits making the HOT lanes crowded just around Tysons. Will that drive the full-length toll up anyway?
Mapmikey
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 30, 2013, 05:24:09 PM
The thing that is difficult for people in the DC area to understand about those lanes is that the system is supposed to ensure they're NOT congested (as cpzilliacus notes). I think it's quite understandable why people see the lanes flowing freely and assume that means "nobody's using them" or that "not enough" people are using them.
EZ Pass went thru the same growing pains (and some people still think that way as well). Motorists would be sitting in the cash lanes, look at the 'empty' EZ Pass lanes, and wonder why no one uses them. Some of these people think that the EZ Pass lane lines should be just as long as those paying cash.
Dr. Gridlock of the Washington Post: Some drivers still uncomfortable with year-old HOT lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/11/01/some-drivers-still-uncomfortable-with-year-old-hot-lanes/)
QuoteWhile the Virginia government is responsible for the type of tolling system used on the express lanes, the Virginia Department of Transportation doesn't set the tolls. The tolls are set by Transurban, the private company that operates the lanes under a long-term lease with Virginia. The toll system was set up to do two basic things: allow the private consortium of the Transurban and Fluor companies to get a return on their investment in building and operating the lanes, and regulate the flow of traffic onto the lanes to avoid congestion, making the trip in the tolled lanes more reliable than the trip in the regular lanes.
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 31, 2013, 07:41:28 AM
I have not witnessed a toll over $7 so I have no observations about the volume of the HOT lanes at that point.
I have seen them over $7 once - on a September afternoon near Tysons Corner to head south. The weather was bad, and the "free" lanes were at a near-standstill.
I would gladly have paid $7 or $9 to avoid that mess (though I was not going that way at the time).
Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock: Year-old Beltway express lanes sell time to D.C. area customers beset by congestion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/year-old-beltway-express-lanes-sell-time-to-dc-area-customers-beset-by-congestion/2013/11/09/11f11760-47cc-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html)
QuoteAdam Epling, who lives near Manassas and commutes to Tysons Corner, is the type of customer that operators of the Capital Beltway express lanes envisioned in their business plan for a highway.
QuoteThey're selling time, and he's buying.
QuoteBefore the express lanes opened, Epling said, his travel time could be as much as 90 minutes each way on the 46-mile round trip. Most days, taking Interstate 66 to the Beltway was out of the question because of congestion.
WTOP Radio: One year later: 495 Express Lane debate is between saving time and money (http://www.wtop.com/654/3505669/Express-users-Va-drivers-women)
QuoteThis weekend marks one year since the 495 Express Lanes opened, but drivers still struggle with whether a consistently fast commute -- even during rush hour -- is worth the price.
QuoteThroughout the last year, tolls have ranged from $0.25 to $9.75. Back on Oct. 30, tolls on the 495 Express Lanes climbed to $9.50. Tolls like those have some drivers questioning how high is too high? Is there a price where saving time on a commute is no longer worth it?
Quote"Even at $4 or $5 one way is pricey. $9.50 is way too much. In a tight economy people are strapped. It's just not a necessity. I would rather wait a few minutes," says Pete Harris of Reston, Va. who referred to them as "Lexus Lanes."
QuoteThe term is popular among opponents of toll lanes to point out that the prices allow the wealthy to have a faster commute, leaving normal everyday workers behind in traffic.
QuoteBut even Tracey Stapleton of Falls Church, Va., who says she loves the express lanes and uses them frequently, admits her cap is well below $9.50 or $9.75.
Both Wed and Thur this week the first VMS showing toll rates on the outer loop near VA 193 were stuck on the cheapest off-peak rates while the next two showed the normal rush hour rates...
Incidentally, when the 95 HOT lanes are opened in a year or so, I assume the price for me to use both the 495 HOT lanes and the 95 HOT lanes will run $10-15 total. And if it saves me 1/2 hour every afternoon I will probably do it. Although really the beltway hasn't been that bad since the 495 Hot lanes were opened on most days so maybe I'll only need to use the 95 Hot lanes...
Mapmikey
Of I was still living in DC and making the kind of $$ I made in the late 1980's, I would be willing to pay, in $$'s adjusted from 1989, about $7 per hour saved in driving time. I would suspect that even at that rate, I would see a noticeable reduction in fuel consumption.
Sometimes driving in the Beltway HO/T lanes feels like being on your own private roadway. Video from a trip to Fair Oaks this past Monday morning:
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 26, 2013, 11:29:25 AM
Sometimes driving in the Beltway HO/T lanes feels like being on your own private roadway. Video from a trip to Fair Oaks this past Monday morning:
Hoo, this highlights the reason for the HOV/Toll lanes
perfectly.
Especially when the weather is rainy enough to slow conventional traffic, the $2.40 is well worth the price.
Seemed to me that the conventional (non-managed) lanes picked up in speed after Va. 650 (Gallows Road), but I could not tell if there was an incident there from your video. Did you notice anything there?
Thank you for sharing.
I didn't notice anything in particular. The radio (which is what the Chipmunks-type noise was) said something about an incident out there, but I didn't see anything. On a rainy day you never know.
I was in DC earlier today and on my way home I noted that there are signs in place (partially covered) for the new 95 Express Lanes in the area just north of the Duke Street interchange. Interestingly, one of the new signs is a Clearview copy of the old sign for the Turkeycock ramp, complete with the I-95/I-495 shields, with the only differences (other than Clearview) being (a) the "EXPRESS LANES ONLY" auxiliary plaque is no longer being used and (b) there is now a poorly-covered black-on-yellow "LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL" banner at the bottom. I found point (b) interesting because technically it's not entirely accurate given the "HOV-or-toll" nature of what they're building there. I'm not sure there's a clearer way to phrase it, though.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 26, 2013, 04:30:13 PM
I didn't notice anything in particular. The radio (which is what the Chipmunks-type noise was) said something about an incident out there, but I didn't see anything. On a rainy day you never know.
I was in DC earlier today and on my way home I noted that there are signs in place (partially covered) for the new 95 Express Lanes in the area just north of the Duke Street interchange. Interestingly, one of the new signs is a Clearview copy of the old sign for the Turkeycock ramp, complete with the I-95/I-495 shields, with the only differences (other than Clearview) being (a) the "EXPRESS LANES ONLY" auxiliary plaque is no longer being used and (b) there is now a poorly-covered black-on-yellow "LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL" banner at the bottom. I found point (b) interesting because technically it's not entirely accurate given the "HOV-or-toll" nature of what they're building there. I'm not sure there's a clearer way to phrase it, though.
This interface between the HOV lanes (only) [between Turkeycock Run in the south and the Pentagon/S. Eads Street interchange in the north] and the HOV/Toll lanes [between Garrisonville, Stafford County in the south and Turkeycock Run in the north is going to be a clunky affair, at least for starters].
It is (in my
personal opinion) unfortunate that VDOT and the Governor and General Assembly did not push back
much harder against the objections raised against the project, which were, in my opinion, frivolous. Naming individual VDOT and USDOT employees as defendants in that lawsuit was entirely unjustified. The last time there was a highway dispute between the Commonwealth and Arlington County (over I-66 between the Capital Beltway and Rosslyn), the Commonwealth got most of what it wanted, though I-66 was scaled-back from the 8-lane freeway that the Virginia Department of Highways (VDH, predecessor agency to VDOT) had long planned for. An acceptable compromise might have been that the private concession owner would not be permitted to widen the reversible roadway from 2 lanes to 3 lanes between Turkeycock Run and the Pentagon.
Technically, everyone on the lanes is tolled, since everyone is supposed to have a toll transponder and the toll gantries look for toll devices on every vehicle. Just that if you are HOV and you have an E-ZPass Flex, your toll amount is always $0.00. It shows up on your E-ZPass statement as such.
From a signing perspective, the main point they are driving home is that it is the last exit before the tolling system/tolling rules/E-ZPass requirement. If you do not have an E-ZPass or do not wish to drive under the gantry, this is your last chance to exit. And, "oh by the way", if you are HOV and have a Flex, you'll pay a toll of zero. But you still have to pay the zero toll by having a Flex device or else you are a violator.
You know, that explanation makes a lot of sense from a logical standpoint for those of us who take the time to think about these things. Having seen the level of ignorance displayed by the general public about the operations of the I-495 HO/T lanes, though, I wonder how many average motorists would follow that.
They have posted the same white signs explaining the rules that we see on the Beltway, of course. Hopefully people would realize it would work the same way! But I have no doubt that plenty of people will be confused. The president of our HOA was shocked to learn that soon she'll have to pay a toll to use a portion of the reversible carriageway on her commute home when this was discussed at a recent meeting, and I generally find her to be a fairly well-informed person.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 29, 2013, 03:06:36 AM
Technically, everyone on the lanes is tolled, since everyone is supposed to have a toll transponder and the toll gantries look for toll devices on every vehicle. Just that if you are HOV and you have an E-ZPass Flex, your toll amount is always $0.00. It shows up on your E-ZPass statement as such.
Yes, that seems to be how Transurban does it for the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes (based on a few trips I have taken in HOV-3 mode on the 495 HOV/toll lanes).
Quote from: mtantillo on December 29, 2013, 03:06:36 AM
From a signing perspective, the main point they are driving home is that it is the last exit before the tolling system/tolling rules/E-ZPass requirement. If you do not have an E-ZPass or do not wish to drive under the gantry, this is your last chance to exit. And, "oh by the way", if you are HOV and have a Flex, you'll pay a toll of zero. But you still have to pay the zero toll by having a Flex device or else you are a violator.
All correct. I understand that some drivers have a hard time grasping that they need to have the Flex transponder to get the HOV-3 toll rate of zero.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2013, 02:09:43 PM
....
Quote from: mtantillo on December 29, 2013, 03:06:36 AM
From a signing perspective, the main point they are driving home is that it is the last exit before the tolling system/tolling rules/E-ZPass requirement. If you do not have an E-ZPass or do not wish to drive under the gantry, this is your last chance to exit. And, "oh by the way", if you are HOV and have a Flex, you'll pay a toll of zero. But you still have to pay the zero toll by having a Flex device or else you are a violator.
All correct. I understand that some drivers have a hard time grasping that they need to have the Flex transponder to get the HOV-3 toll rate of zero.
I find it amusing how many of the people in the slugging community have screamed bloody murder at the idea that they should have to get an E-ZPass Flex, as they say they were told HOVs would always ride free and so they say (a) there should be no need for a transponder and (b) the E-ZPass Flex isn't free. As to the first issue, it was always made clear a switchable transponder was needed; as to the second, if you get an E-ZPass Flex and use it solely for HOV-mode travel on the HO/T lanes, the fee is waived (and, frankly, I think if someone doesn't already have an E-ZPass and uses the I-95 HOV to commute, it's not at all implausible to think he'd use the transponder solely on that facility when the HO/T system opens). Either way, though, I roll my eyes because I'd love to see those slug drivers get busted for not using an E-ZPass and then try to contest the ticket in court on the basis that "I don't think I should have to get an E-ZPass."
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 30, 2013, 10:04:17 AM
I find it amusing how many of the people in the slugging community have screamed bloody murder at the idea that they should have to get an E-ZPass Flex, as they say they were told HOVs would always ride free and so they say (a) there should be no need for a transponder and (b) the E-ZPass Flex isn't free. As to the first issue, it was always made clear a switchable transponder was needed; as to the second, if you get an E-ZPass Flex and use it solely for HOV-mode travel on the HO/T lanes, the fee is waived (and, frankly, I think if someone doesn't already have an E-ZPass and uses the I-95 HOV to commute, it's not at all implausible to think he'd use the transponder solely on that facility when the HO/T system opens). Either way, though, I roll my eyes because I'd love to see those slug drivers get busted for not using an E-ZPass and then try to contest the ticket in court on the basis that "I don't think I should have to get an E-ZPass."
From a public policy perspective, slugging is great. One of the great failings of transportation planning in our region (in retrospect) was to not several other corridors for slugging.
It makes efficient and effective use of scarce peak-period highway capacity, costs the slugs and body snatchers little, and saves everyone a lot of time - without expensive things like transit union labor and transit buses.
But having said that, I think these folks protest rather too loudly.
The cost of an E-ZPass Flex unit is pretty minimal, and the population served by the I-95/I-395 HOV lanes is
not an impoverished one. If they did not like the conversion of the lanes from "regular" HOV lanes to HOV/Toll lanes, then they should have complained to their elected representatives in Richmond (especially) and in Washington, and they might have considered who they should (and should not) vote for on Election Day.
I don't think anyone would get very far with the "I don't need a transponder" defense.
What about out of town drivers who otherwise fulfill the HOV requirement? Why should they be barred from the lanes or forced to pay a toll? It's not fair to impose extra requirements on non-locals. HOV, in the past, has always been about number of occupants alone.
Quote from: vdeane on December 30, 2013, 04:10:26 PM
What about out of town drivers who otherwise fulfill the HOV requirement? Why should they be barred from the lanes or forced to pay a toll? It's not fair to impose extra requirements on non-locals. HOV, in the past, has always been about number of occupants alone.
That's a fair question.
I suppose the promoters of this project would respond by saying that anyone can get an E-ZPass Flex transponder, not just residents of Virginia. Though the only other toll agency that currently issues them (as far as I am aware) is the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA).
Quote from: vdeane on December 30, 2013, 04:10:26 PM
What about out of town drivers who otherwise fulfill the HOV requirement? Why should they be barred from the lanes or forced to pay a toll? It's not fair to impose extra requirements on non-locals. HOV, in the past, has always been about number of occupants alone.
I think Virginia's system is actually a pretty reasonable and flexible one compared to some other HO/T systems. Miami's I-95 HO/T lanes, for example, give the HOV exemption only to "registered carpools." I learned from "mtantillo" of this forum that they will not allow you to register if you have an out-of-state plate, even with a valid SunPass and even if you live in the Miami area for a good chunk of the year (such as the people Floridians call "snowbirds," i.e., northerners who come south for the winter).
Virginia's "extra requirement" (to use your phrase) doesn't apply solely to non-local drivers, BTW. It applies to everyone, local drivers included. It's not simply a case of "local drivers will get the HOV transponder," either. The E-ZPass Flex has a higher monthly fee (at least from Virginia–I don't know if Maryland's policy is the same) than the standard E-ZPass at $1.00 for the Flex versus 50¢ for the standard device, although as I noted previously there is a way to get your Flex device with no monthly fee if you use it solely for carpooling (again, that's Virginia's policy and I don't believe Maryland offers the same). But then you have those of us who currently have fee-free E-ZPasses because we had them before VDOT instituted the monthly fee–they grandfathered us in
until our transponders need to be replaced
or until we replace a transponder with a Flex (also, any additional transponders we request are subject to whichever fee applies to the particular device we request). Thus, to use my wife and me as an example, we have two E-ZPasses with no monthly fee. If we replace one with an E-ZPass Flex, it would cost us $1.00 a month because we're never going to use it solely for carpooling. If we get a third E-ZPass for our third car, it would cost us 50¢ a month (we will never get a third E-ZPass for that car, no reason to do so). When either of our current transponders reaches the end of its battery life, the replacement device will cost 50¢ a month unless by then there's a sticker-type device available.
So we don't have an E-ZPass Flex. Not worth it to us because we've never used the HO/T lanes with three or more people, and if we did do so it would be so rare an occasion that we wouldn't get bent out of shape about the toll. But if I were a driver who picked up slugs, I would absolutely get an E-ZPass Flex when the I-95 HO/T lane system will open. It wouldn't be fee-free for me because I'd use it on other roads. I don't think it's worth swapping transponders just to save $1 a month, as the toll savings on the HO/T lanes would far outweigh the fee. But since I don't pick up slugs and since we don't have kids who ride with us in the HOV and HO/T lanes, it's not worth it.
I can't see it ever being economical for someone from a different state to get a MD/VA tag just for flex, especially someone who has a fee-free (by statute) E-ZPass. That Miami system is just asking to be challenged in court. IMO, it should be illegal (and probably is - I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't allow states to treat residents and non-residents differently).
States do this all the time...college tuition being a glaring and expensive example. Some states (maybe all?) do this with fishing licenses too.
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2013, 03:28:32 PM
That Miami system is just asking to be challenged in court. IMO, it should be illegal (and probably is - I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't allow states to treat residents and non-residents differently).
Virginia has been getting away with that for many years.
So-called clean fuel tags (various kinds of which have allowed the owner an exemption to Virginia's many HOV lanes) have never been available to owners of Toyota Priuses, Honda Insights or other hybrid vehicles.
I assert that there are more than a few things Constitutionally wrong with that, but as far as I know, it has never been challenged in court. I don't think it would survive a court challenge, even though Virginia has a legal presumption that everything passed by its General Assembly is Constitutional.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 31, 2013, 04:42:29 PM
States do this all the time...college tuition being a glaring and expensive example. Some states (maybe all?) do this with fishing licenses too.
With college tuition, at least in that case in-state people are subsidizing it with tax money (that's why the difference exists). Fishing licences are just money grabs anyways, so it's probably similar.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2013, 04:52:36 PM
Virginia has been getting away with that for many years.
So-called clean fuel tags (various kinds of which have allowed the owner an exemption to Virginia's many HOV lanes) have never been available to owners of Toyota Priuses, Honda Insights or other hybrid vehicles.
Not sure where you got that information. Those models are all over the qualified vehicle list going back to 2003.
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/cleanspecialfuel.html#qualify
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 01, 2014, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2013, 04:52:36 PM
Virginia has been getting away with that for many years.
So-called clean fuel tags (various kinds of which have allowed the owner an exemption to Virginia's many HOV lanes) have never been available to owners of Toyota Priuses, Honda Insights or other hybrid vehicles.
Not sure where you got that information. Those models are all over the qualified vehicle list going back to 2003.
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/cleanspecialfuel.html#qualify
At one point, Priuses were eligible for clean fuel plates entitled to the HOV examption, and there are still some out there. But that went away before I got mine. A co-worker got an exemption-eligible plate for her Prius (which helped, since she lived near the I-95 HOV lanes). By the time I got my Prius in 2008, exemption-eligible plates were not being issued, and if I got a clean-fuel plate it would have been a non-exempt variety, so I didn't bother.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 01, 2014, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2013, 04:52:36 PM
Virginia has been getting away with that for many years.
So-called clean fuel tags (various kinds of which have allowed the owner an exemption to Virginia's many HOV lanes) have never been available to owners of Toyota Priuses, Honda Insights or other hybrid vehicles.
Not sure where you got that information. Those models are all over the qualified vehicle list going back to 2003.
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/cleanspecialfuel.html#qualify
I am familiar with the list.
But that list does nothing for you
if you do not reside in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
That is my point.
Perhaps the only good thing about Transurban taking over the HOV lanes along I-95 and the southern end of I-395 is the end of free rides for the many Virginia-registered hybrid vehicles out there.
Quote from: oscar on January 01, 2014, 07:27:17 PM
At one point, Priuses were eligible for clean fuel plates entitled to the HOV examption, and there are still some out there. But that went away before I got mine. A co-worker got an exemption-eligible plate for her Prius (which helped, since she lived near the I-95 HOV lanes). By the time I got my Prius in 2008, exemption-eligible plates were not being issued, and if I got a clean-fuel plate it would have been a non-exempt variety, so I didn't bother.
The original series of Virginia CF tags allowed access to all HOV-restricted lanes in Virginia.
Then a new series was released, which removed the HOV exemption for I-95 and I-395, effectively capping the number of HOV-exempt vehicles eligible for that corridor.
After that came another series, which removed the HOV exemption for I-66, leaving unrestricted access only to the HOV lanes along Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) only.
Adam might know what the story is regarding HOV exemptions on I-64, I-264 and I-564 in Hampton Roads.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2014, 08:24:31 PM
....
Adam might know what the story is regarding HOV exemptions on I-64, I-264 and I-564 in Hampton Roads.
I've also wondered about the HOV-2 lanes on Route 1 and Washington Street through Old Town Alexandria. I assume the clean fuel plates provide an exemption but have never heard confirmation yea or nay, and frankly I've never been all that motivated to investigate because it doesn't affect us due to none of our cars being eligible either way (heck, our RX-7 is about as fuel-
inefficient as most mass-market cars get). On the other hand, I could also see a ticket being given because those streets were never mentioned on VDOT's website where it lists HOV information.
Is there any information on why the I-495 HOT lanes were not extended as far north as VA 193? I am aware of the NIMBYism and BANANAism that would prevent the logical extension of the HOT lanes across the Legion Bridge, but it seems strange that the HOT lanes don't at least have passive provision to allow them to be extended easily.
Quote from: vdeane on January 01, 2014, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 31, 2013, 04:42:29 PM
States do this all the time...college tuition being a glaring and expensive example. Some states (maybe all?) do this with fishing licenses too.
With college tuition, at least in that case in-state people are subsidizing it with tax money (that's why the difference exists). Fishing licences are just money grabs anyways, so it's probably similar.
Also, interstate commerce is a golden calf among reasons to disallow differences between states.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on January 02, 2014, 03:54:53 PM
Is there any information on why the I-495 HOT lanes were not extended as far north as VA 193? I am aware of the NIMBYism and BANANAism that would prevent the logical extension of the HOT lanes across the Legion Bridge, but it seems strange that the HOT lanes don't at least have passive provision to allow them to be extended easily.
This (http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/) would be the place to ask.
Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2014, 11:03:13 PM
Also, interstate commerce is a golden calf among reasons to disallow differences between states.
More than just Interstate commerce in the context of the so-called "hybrid" exemption from HOV rules in Virginia. With the possible exception of the arterial HOV lanes on U.S. 1 in the City of Alexandria, all of the Virginia HOV lanes represent substantial investment by federal taxpayers.
Virginia's HOV exemptions and whatnot (including the "clean fuel plates") are on this VDOT page (http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/hov-rulesfaq.asp). In short (regarding CP's comment), hybrids with "clean fuel plates" are allowed on the Hampton Roads HOV lanes regardless of when their plates were issued.
QuoteWith the possible exception of the arterial HOV lanes on U.S. 1 in the City of Alexandria, all of the Virginia HOV lanes represent substantial investment by federal taxpayers.
According to FHWA, the I-264 HOV lanes in Virginia Beach were opened in 1992, which would peg them as pre-264 (I-264 was added there in 1999) and pre-toll-removal (tolls were removed in 1995). So in short, the I-264 HOV lanes east of I-64 were paid from tolls and not from Federal taxpayers. The same is likely the case with the Dulles Toll Road HOV lanes.
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2014, 09:00:00 AM
Virginia's HOV exemptions and whatnot (including the "clean fuel plates") are on this VDOT page (http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/hov-rulesfaq.asp). In short (regarding CP's comment), hybrids with "clean fuel plates" are allowed on the Hampton Roads HOV lanes regardless of when their plates were issued.
Thank you.
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2014, 09:00:00 AM
QuoteWith the possible exception of the arterial HOV lanes on U.S. 1 in the City of Alexandria, all of the Virginia HOV lanes represent substantial investment by federal taxpayers.
According to FHWA, the I-264 HOV lanes in Virginia Beach were opened in 1992, which would peg them as pre-264 (I-264 was added there in 1999) and pre-toll-removal (tolls were removed in 1995). So in short, the I-264 HOV lanes east of I-64 were paid from tolls and not from Federal taxpayers.
That sounds right. I remember when the HOV lanes were opened on (what was then) Va. 44.
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2014, 09:00:00 AM
The same is likely the case with the Dulles Toll Road HOV lanes.
The
pavement in the lanes themselves (and shoulders, guardrails and signs),
yes. The
land under the Dulles Toll Road,
absolutely not - it was purchased by the Federal Aviation Administration when Dulles Airport was built in the late 1950's and early 1960's.
Said land would have already been amortized out by the time DTR was constructed, let alone when HOV lanes were added to the DTR. Since the land had already long been purchased and done by the time the DTR HOV lanes came about, it's a hard sell to claim that Federal funding was used in their construction.
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2014, 11:58:16 AM
Said land would have already been amortized out by the time DTR was constructed, let alone when HOV lanes were added to the DTR. Since the land had already long been purchased and done by the time the DTR HOV lanes came about, it's a hard sell to claim that Federal funding was used in their construction.
I respectfully disagree.
You don't generally amortize or depreciate the land, only the improvements you build on it.
And the federal government's long-standing policy on assets where federal dollars fund even a relatively small part of the value of the asset means that federal rules and regulations apply to that asset with no time limitation.
Regardless of one's opinion of whether the federal gov't contributed substantially to the cost of the toll road, they DO have (or least did in 1988) authority to overrule VDOT on decisions involving HOV.
See pdf pages 53-55 (pages 31-33 of the document) at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1988-01.pdf
VDOT tried to establish peak period HOV-3 on the median lane, which was agreed to by the MWAA (in fact the agreement for allowing the toll road on their ROW requires VDOT provide HOV relief when congestion warranted it). This was then overturned by the Congressional Oversight Committee for the Operation of Airports. The CTB then deferred implementation of the HOV until safety of the road and enforcement technology was improved, among other things.
Mapmikey
Spotted something interesting on I-95's HOV facility this afternoon. See below: Variable speed limit signs and what appear to be lane-control signals. There was another just past the exit for the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. I exited there and so I don't know if there are any of these further south. I have not previously heard anything about variable speed limits being implemented on there either during construction or as part of the final HO/T lane configuration, but I think it makes sense to set up something like this together with lane-control signals because of the lanes' configuration of cramming three lanes into the existing footprint. That "shoulder" on the right in this image is in essentially its final configuration. Once the work is done and the HO/T lanes open, there is likely to be a need to close off a lane when there's an incident due to the lack of a full-width shoulder.
Hopefully sometime soon I can get a better picture when the sun is in a different place in the sky. Now that I know these are there, maybe next time I drive out to Fairfax I will use the northbound HOV in mid-morning so the sun is behind me.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FVariablespeedlimitI-95_zps5ca8f7db.png&hash=c7ecf5cc4e64501193cddb5442b09aa4bf9a1c7b)
Edited to add: I sent a tweet to the project management and received this reply confirming there will be variable speed limits:
QuoteSpeed limits on 95 Express Lanes will be adjusted to help traffic move safely in the event of an incident/bad weather
They are placing these assemblies at very regular intervals south of where you took the photo...
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 06, 2014, 08:37:10 PM
They are placing these assemblies at very regular intervals south of where you took the photo...
Mapmikey
Thanks for the info. I haven't gone anywhere south of there in about a month and hadn't seen any. There aren't any of them north of there–at least, not as of this past Friday there weren't.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 14, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
....
Northbound, in the morning, I think the lanes will work okay up to but not including the end of the HOT lanes at Edsal Road. You're going to have more lanes feeding a chokepoint. The mainline lanes of I-395 will be very congested approaching this merge point. HOT lane users will get to the front of the line, but will still ultimately have to merge. We can only hope that enough of the tollpayers are going to Tysons and not up I-395, that is what will keep the merge from becomming awful. Perhaps the lane operators could make the toll for the segment between the Beltway and Edsal Road very high, thereby encouraging Tysons commuters but discouraging DC commuters from using the lanes, or at the least, getting DC commuters out of the lanes a little earlier than at the very very end. Also, the operators should play up the fact that anyone with HOV-2 has another option...rather than merge onto I-395, they could continue paying tolls and use the I-495 lanes, and then take I-66 inbound to Arlington and DC (would really only work well for the west side of DC and Arlington, would be too out of the way for Capitol Hill).
....
Mike made the comment above way back in the very first post in this thread. I thought I'd mention that we tried this last night. Yesterday morning I offered to drive my wife to work, but she declined. She works at the Watergate complex near the Kennedy Center and takes the Metrorail to Foggy Bottom and then walks. Well, she got to work and e-mailed me and said it was a mistake to decline my offer because she was freezing by the time she arrived. So I picked her up last night. I had observed that I-395 outbound was at a standstill the entire way from the Pentagon to the Beltway, and there is a direct ramp from the Kennedy Center to the Roosevelt Bridge, so I had the idea of taking I-66 as an HOV-2 vehicle, then taking the Beltway HO/T lanes. All I have to say is, wow. We pulled away from her office at 5:32 and were pulling into our driveway in Kingstowne at 5:58–23 miles in 26 minutes at the peak of rush hour. Beltway toll was $2.25 and probably should have been higher–there was a huge crash out in the local lanes between Gallows and 236, debris all over the two or three right lanes.
This option really hasn't been publicized at all and I can see why someone would think it sounds crazy–we live south of the Beltway off Van Dorn Street and instead we drove 11 miles WEST before turning south.
The opposite route is not quite as fast due to I-66. I drove her to work this morning and I logically decided to try the same route, Beltway HO/T to I-66. The Beltway part was great even with a $5.15 toll (and HO/T lane traffic was busier than I'd ever seen it). I-66, not so much–it slowed to a crawl at the West Falls Church Metro and stayed that way until after Sycamore Street. Then we hit the tail end of the Roosevelt Bridge backup, so I took Exit 73 and went over Key Bridge, which was slow but not awful (and I have to say all the ice in the Potomac was neat to see, been quite a few years since I've seen it like that). Still much faster than the direct route, and faster than the Metro for that matter: We pulled out of our driveway at 8:12 and pulled up to her office at 8:51. So it's definitely quicker. It just doesn't work quite as well as the evening rush hour. I assume the main problem is the Dulles traffic refusing to merge properly and instead racing all the way down the "Exit Only" lane at the US-29 exit in Falls Church, then cutting across the gore area so people slam on the brakes.
The express lane operators really should consider publicizing this option for HOV-2 traffic paying the toll on I-95 when that system opens. Depending on where in DC you're ultimately headed, and on your tolerance for tolls, it's astonishing how much faster this is than fighting the general-purpose lanes on I-395 or sitting through all the red lights on parallel routes.
I would love to see Arlington residents along the I-66 corridor throw a fit about publicizing this! But really, Transurban gets more toll revenue from those going up to I-66 from Springfield than they would going up to Duke St from Springfield, so it is to their benefit to publicize it.
I-66 may be better outbound in PM rush because of that spot improvement from Fairfax drive to Sycamore Street. Made far more of an improvement than I ever expected.
Glad my idea worked :)
What I will find interesting is trying your idea on the southbound trip to Charlottesville some Friday night once the I-95 HO/T opens. We dropped our football season tickets a few years ago but we usually go to one or two games a year. If we leave on a Friday night I usually just put up with the slog out I-66 to Route 29 after picking up my wife at her office. I-66 moves right along until just before the Beltway and then you crawl, but it's still faster on a Friday night than I-95 is. I'm now intrigued by the idea of taking I-66 to the Beltway, the Beltway HO/T to Springfield, then the long loop ramp into the I-95 HO/T all the way down to Aquia. That would leave 13 or 17 miles in the main lanes (we normally exit at Route 3 and head west to Route 20, but this past October I found another way that involves exiting at Massaponax and using the new Lake Anna Parkway....avoids all those damn lights on Route 3). Right now this is not an option because of the traffic–we'd hit I-95 right around the end of HOV hours, but that's right as everyone floods into the HOV, and it backs up at Dumfries anyway. I-66 is slow, but it's a shorter distance.
The toll might well be extremely steep for a trip like that, to the point where I'd consider checking my E-ZPass balance before going and perhaps making a one-time payment to top up my account. But, as you suggested in a prior post in this thread, if you're only making that sort of trip (a 27-mile southbound trip during rush hour) once or twice a year, it's a lot easier to suck up the high toll to save time than it would be if you did it every day (I'd definitely pick up slugs if I had to make that drive, even after the tolling starts).
QuoteI assume the main problem is the Dulles traffic refusing to merge properly
Moreso the sheer volume of traffic in what is effectively a 4-to-2 merge. Even if they "merge properly", you'll still have issues.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 26, 2013, 08:38:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 26, 2013, 04:30:13 PM
I didn't notice anything in particular. The radio (which is what the Chipmunks-type noise was) said something about an incident out there, but I didn't see anything. On a rainy day you never know.
I was in DC earlier today and on my way home I noted that there are signs in place (partially covered) for the new 95 Express Lanes in the area just north of the Duke Street interchange. Interestingly, one of the new signs is a Clearview copy of the old sign for the Turkeycock ramp, complete with the I-95/I-495 shields, with the only differences (other than Clearview) being (a) the "EXPRESS LANES ONLY" auxiliary plaque is no longer being used and (b) there is now a poorly-covered black-on-yellow "LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL" banner at the bottom. I found point (b) interesting because technically it's not entirely accurate given the "HOV-or-toll" nature of what they're building there. I'm not sure there's a clearer way to phrase it, though.
This interface between the HOV lanes (only) [between Turkeycock Run in the south and the Pentagon/S. Eads Street interchange in the north] and the HOV/Toll lanes [between Garrisonville, Stafford County in the south and Turkeycock Run in the north is going to be a clunky affair, at least for starters].
It is (in my personal opinion) unfortunate that VDOT and the Governor and General Assembly did not push back much harder against the objections raised against the project, which were, in my opinion, frivolous. Naming individual VDOT and USDOT employees as defendants in that lawsuit was entirely unjustified. The last time there was a highway dispute between the Commonwealth and Arlington County (over I-66 between the Capital Beltway and Rosslyn), the Commonwealth got most of what it wanted, though I-66 was scaled-back from the 8-lane freeway that the Virginia Department of Highways (VDH, predecessor agency to VDOT) had long planned for. An acceptable compromise might have been that the private concession owner would not be permitted to widen the reversible roadway from 2 lanes to 3 lanes between Turkeycock Run and the Pentagon.
To what extent would the project need the local government approval if they merely changed the occupancy requirements of the lanes between the Pentagon and Turkeycock, if they do no physical construction?
As I understand it, Arlington was able to sue because the road widening would ruin air quality. But could the legislature (or VDOT) simply remove the HOV restriction on this section of the roadway to allow the riders who are currently on the express lanes to continue to their destination without needing to merge?
[IIRC the section between Pentagon and DC along the bridge was once bus only, but is now open to all traffic at all times, so this has been done before.]
They could adjust the HOV restriction (hours/occupancy), but they cannot eliminate it entirely. But eliminating it entirely would create an even worse bottleneck at the end than tolling it.
It appears that when HOV-4 was dropped to HOV-3 the only concern VDOT had over its ability to do this was a federal law that would withhold money from Virginia if they modified anything related to the HOV dynamic on the Shirley Hwy. That law was repealed in Sept 1988 and in Oct 1988 VDOT changed HOV-4 to HOV-3. There is no mention in the Oct 1988 CTB Minutes (see pages 53-54 of the pdf at http://www.virginiadot.org/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-10-1988-01.pdf) of consulting with any local authority.
Which doesn't prevent someone from suing over it, but VDOT does have the authority to modify HOV rules...
Mapmikey
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2014, 01:13:16 AM
To what extent would the project need the local government approval if they merely changed the occupancy requirements of the lanes between the Pentagon and Turkeycock, if they do no physical construction?
It
could have an impact on air quality, and Arlington County is represented on the groups that do regional-scale air quality and long-range transportation planning, as it should be.
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2014, 01:13:16 AM
As I understand it, Arlington was able to sue because the road widening would ruin air quality. But could the legislature (or VDOT) simply remove the HOV restriction on this section of the roadway to allow the riders who are currently on the express lanes to continue to their destination without needing to merge?
Arlington sued, and asserted (among other things) that there would be air quality problems from an extension, but I do not think that was ever adjudicated before a judge. They also asserted environmental justice issues, which were also never adjudicated.
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2014, 01:13:16 AM
[IIRC the section between Pentagon and DC along the bridge was once bus only, but is now open to all traffic at all times, so this has been done before.]
The "original" HOV/restricted lane roadway between the Va. 644 at Springfield and the D.C. side of the 14th Street Bridge was once buses-only. It was then opened to van-poolers, then to HOV-4 car-pools and finally to HOV-3 car-poolers. After 1989, the HOV restrictions between the Pentagon and the D.C. end of the restricted lanes were removed, and have never been imposed since then.
Washington Post: Express Lanes driving, tolls, continued to rise in late 2013 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/01/14/express-lanes-driving-tolls-continued-to-rise-in-late-2013/)
QuoteAverage workday use of the Capital Beltway's 495 Express Lanes rose slightly in the last three months of 2013, according to the operating company's latest quarterly report.
QuoteThe biggest day was Dec. 19, the Thursday before Christmas, when 46,975 trips were taken along the 14 miles of high-occupancy toll lanes between Springfield and the area just north of Tysons Corner. This may have been a combination of holiday shopping, some long-distance travel and regular commuting. The toll revenue for the day also was a record, at $123,604.
QuoteFor the final quarter, average workday trips totaled 37,969, compared with 37,574 in the July-September quarter. Transurban's financial report noted that commuter traffic was down because of the 16-day federal government shutdown in October.
QuoteStill, the daily revenue grew from a daily average of $51,736 in the July-September quarter to an average of $64,277 for the October-December period.
And a follow-up from WTOP (http://www.wtop.com/41/3542678/495-Express-Lanes-One-year-review-shows-customer-use-fell-short-of-projections) which notes the first year numbers are notably lower than the initial projections of 66,000 vpd.
Quote from: froggie on January 15, 2014, 03:29:24 PM
And a follow-up from WTOP (http://www.wtop.com/41/3542678/495-Express-Lanes-One-year-review-shows-customer-use-fell-short-of-projections) which notes the first year numbers are notably lower than the initial projections of 66,000 vpd.
And yet another follow-up from
Bacon's Rebellion (http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2014/01/the-statewide-importance-of-the-495-express-lanes.html). Jim Bacon speaks to your comment above (
emphasis added):
QuoteHere's Transurban's problem: When it was lining up financing in 2007 for the $2 billion project, which added four new lanes to a 14-mile stretch of the Capital Beltway, the economy was booming. A 2007 traffic and revenue study by Vollmer/Stantec forecast average weekday trips over the first full year of operations at 66,000 and revenue of $46.1 million, according to Toll Road News (http://tollroadsnews.com/news/va-495-express-lanes-traffic-below-expectations-adjustments-needed-operator-tells-shareholders). After four years of operation, the study forecast, the express lanes would log 117,000 average weekday trips and annual revenue of $79 million. No one anticipated the severe recession or the national erosion in Vehicle Miles Traveled that eased congestion on the nation's highways. The whole point of paying a toll to use the express lanes is to avoid the unpredictability and time delays caused by congestion. No congestion = no revenue.
QuoteThe company pulled out of its investment in the Pocahontas Parkway outside Richmond last year but remains committed to completing the Interstate 95 express lanes project in Northern Virginia.
The Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock: I-95 express lanes operator plans long campaign to attract customers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/i-95-express-lanes-operator-plans-long-campaign-to-attract-customers/2014/02/01/6c450854-89d8-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html)
QuoteThe 95 Express Lanes in Northern Virginia aren't scheduled to open till the start of 2015, but the company that will operate them is planning to launch an education and marketing campaign early this year.
QuoteThe high-occupancy toll lanes already open on the Capital Beltway showed some of the complexities inherent in this style of driving. Commuters who had little experience with any form of toll road had to learn what it was like to use a toll road with no tollbooths, on which the toll could vary by a few dollars, depending on when they chose to use it.
QuoteThough the Beltway express lanes have been open more than a year, drivers still ask me very basic questions about the decisions they need to make and the tolls they have to pay.
QuoteThe version of the express lanes coming to Interstate 95 follows the same basic concept, but a driver who has been using the Beltway lanes will notice some important differences.
Putting a Price on D.C.'s Worst Commute: See the Atlantic Cities article that I posted to the Virginia forum (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg286352#msg286352).
Lot of discussion about the I-95 HOV/Toll lanes.
BTW, we were on outbound I-395 this past Saturday morning and I had an interesting thought (sorry, no video screenshot of the sign, we were in my wife's car). On southbound I-395 as you approach the Turkeycock ramps, which is where the HO/T system will have its northern terminus, there are a bunch of new BGSs in place as I noted earlier in this thread.
The BGS for the Turkeycock ramp lists, in this order:
[Secondary 648 shield] Edsall Road
[I-95 shield] [I-495 shield]
[Secondary 644 shield] Franconia
No cardinal direction posted for the Beltway (you may recall the old sign had "I-95 NORTH I-495").
The part that struck me as peculiar is the use of "Franconia." I assume someone just copied that from the old sign. Here's why it's odd. Under the current design, that sign makes sense as worded: If you qualify to be in the HOV lanes, you can stay in the HOV lanes and exit directly onto westbound Route 644 towards Springfield and Burke. If you want to go eastbound, you must use the Turkeycock flyover and then wend your way through the ramps in Springfield. Under the new system, however, you will either have to satisfy HOV or pay a toll if you want to use the direct ramp from the reversible lanes to westbound 644. If you are unable or unwilling to comply, you will have to exit at Turkeycock. (This issue exists because during non-HOV hours, all traffic will be permitted in the reversible lanes north of Turkeycock, just as is the case today, but south of there will be 24/7 HO/T operations.)
Maybe it's a trivial point and I'm overanalyzing the sign.
WOW! Dr. Gridlock has a new blog entry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/04/15/express-lanes-get-pricier-at-peak-times/) saying the peak toll on the I-495 HO/T lanes hit $11.55 on April 3.
At 9:00 this morning, the Inner Loop toll to go the full length of the lanes was $11.00.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2014, 01:34:59 PM
WOW! Dr. Gridlock has a new blog entry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/04/15/express-lanes-get-pricier-at-peak-times/) saying the peak toll on the I-495 HO/T lanes hit $11.55 on April 3.
At 9:00 this morning, the Inner Loop toll to go the full length of the lanes was $11.00.
You beat me to the punch. Good news for Transurban.
Virginia getting rid of E-ZPass monthly fees (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg293207#msg293207)
CPZ,
In the future, please only post once in the thread that is most relevant to the topic at hand (including news articles). I know that the EZPass information does apply here (and in the Hampton Roads tolls thread), but referring to a post in another thread (in this case the Virginia thread-where this information is most relevant IMO) makes it seem that you are duplicating posts, which is against forum guidelines. (Unless the topic itself is a duplicate topic that should not exist in the first place.)
Thanks,
Mark
Sounds to me like a driver was in the wrong lane, and had a freak-out with fatal consequences.
Should there be signs that read DO NOT STOP and DO NOT BACK UP?
Even though that should be implicit on a freeway-class road?
Woman dies in crash at Beltway express lanes entrance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/05/08/woman-dies-in-crash-at-beltway-express-lanes-entrance/)
My thoughts are already in the comments below that blog entry. I'm surprised none of the hand-wringers attacked me for them, especially for my "Darwin in Action" comment.
Those hand-wringers seem to think that coming to a complete stop in a travel lane is a perfectly normal thing that happens all the time. "Driver confusion" is not a valid reason to stop. Mechanical failures/medical emergencies involve parking on the shoulder.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 10, 2014, 08:43:31 AM
My thoughts are already in the comments below that blog entry. I'm surprised none of the hand-wringers attacked me for them, especially for my "Darwin in Action" comment.
Perhaps the signs should read
DO NOT STOP -
DO NOT BACK UP -
YOU WILL BE BILLED IN THE MAIL?
Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2014, 05:31:44 PM
Those hand-wringers seem to think that coming to a complete stop in a travel lane is a perfectly normal thing that happens all the time. "Driver confusion" is not a valid reason to stop. Mechanical failures/medical emergencies involve parking on the shoulder.
I think you are correct. But the person who was killed had probably been driving for many years, and may never have encountered an all-electronic toll road before (there are only two relatively short toll roads in the entire state of South Carolina).
Spotted this yesterday on northbound I-395. Had not seen it before. The change is the "HOV LANES" banner–it used to say "RESTRICTED LANES" (some of the other signs still do). It makes perfect sense when you consider the change coming this winter. The reversible carriageway north of this point will operate as it does today–HOV during rush hour, open to all traffic at other times except when they close it to reverse the direction. South of this point, the lanes will still be "restricted lanes" but will use a different sort of restriction (HOV-3 or pay toll). So the term "Restricted Lanes" will be too generic.
So a very sensible change. I just found it interesting to see.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FHOVlanesinsteadofRestrictedLanes_zpsd6745447.png&hash=4e4beb06676d334759790bca3ab857f66502ac64)
Incidentally, I noted some of the exit signs over the HOV carriageway that previously bore "Restricted Lanes" banners (the signs for the exit to the Beltway that opened in November 2012) have been altered, presumably via greenout, to use the new green "EXPRESS EXIT" banner called for in the I-95 HO/T lane signage specifications. (No pictures of those. It was around 11:30 PM when we went through there last night and any video capture I were to post would be too grainy.) I'm sure when the lanes open there will be some people asking the local media outlets (Dr. Gridlock, Adam Tuss) why the signs on the Beltway use a white "E-ZPass EXPRESS EXIT" banner while the ones on I-95 use a green "EXPRESS EXIT" sign.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 12, 2014, 12:00:35 PM
Incidentally, I noted some of the exit signs over the HOV carriageway that previously bore "Restricted Lanes" banners (the signs for the exit to the Beltway that opened in November 2012) have been altered, presumably via greenout, to use the new green "EXPRESS EXIT" banner called for in the I-95 HO/T lane signage specifications. (No pictures of those. It was around 11:30 PM when we went through there last night and any video capture I were to post would be too grainy.) I'm sure when the lanes open there will be some people asking the local media outlets (Dr. Gridlock, Adam Tuss) why the signs on the Beltway use a white "E-ZPass EXPRESS EXIT" banner while the ones on I-95 use a green "EXPRESS EXIT" sign.
I think "RESTRICTED LANES" goes back to the 1980's and maybe the 1970's. EDIT: In the 1970's, there were signs that read "POOL CARS."
Your point about the signage between the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes and the I-95(and I-395) lanes being inconsistent is a good one.
Perhaps because the former are always running in the same direction, while the latter are reversible?
I don't think that is a very good answer, but it's the only one I could think of.
WTOP Radio: 495 Express Lanes free for one week during off-peak hours (http://www.wtop.com/41/3700913/Free-week-of-rides-in-the-fast-lanes)
QuoteWASHINGTON -- To save a few minutes off on their commute through Virginia, many travelers pay to use the 495 Express Lanes. Now, commuters can get a free week of rides in the fast lanes.
QuoteBy registering on the 495 Express Lanes website users can spend the week of Sept. 22 riding toll free in the lanes.
QuoteThomas Williams of Rockville, Maryland says he is willing to try it for a week during his daily commute along the beltway in Virginia.
Quote"Anything that is a bargain, I will give it a try."
QuoteDuring the week of the promotion, the free hours go from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., which means rush hours will still cost.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 14, 2014, 12:22:34 PM
....
Your point about the signage between the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes and the I-95(and I-395) lanes being inconsistent is a good one.
Perhaps because the former are always running in the same direction, while the latter are reversible?
I don't think that is a very good answer, but it's the only one I could think of.
I assumed the I-495 signs were designed and approved under old standards and that the I-95 signs were designed using a newer MUTCD. Don't know whether that's accurate, but I believe the new MUTCD calls for purple banners on signs leading to the lanes and the old one didn't (among other things).
I think the system used in Toronto, with the signs over the different carriageways being different colors, is a good system. Indeed I-395 used to have that back in the 1970s/early 1980s (using black backgrounds for the reversible lanes).
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 14, 2014, 01:40:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 14, 2014, 12:22:34 PM
....
Your point about the signage between the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes and the I-95(and I-395) lanes being inconsistent is a good one.
Perhaps because the former are always running in the same direction, while the latter are reversible?
I don't think that is a very good answer, but it's the only one I could think of.
I assumed the I-495 signs were designed and approved under old standards and that the I-95 signs were designed using a newer MUTCD. Don't know whether that's accurate, but I believe the new MUTCD calls for purple banners on signs leading to the lanes and the old one didn't (among other things).
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Virginia adopted the 2009 MUTCD on Dec. 7, 2011. The I-95 HOT lane project had not yet started.
Transurban just tweeted that they expect the I-95 HO/T lanes will open in December. Previously they'd cited early 2015 as the target date. The idea of opening them right before Christmas seems like potentially a decent idea insofar as traffic volumes are almost always considerably lower for the final two weeks of the year. Recall all the wrecks on the Beltway during the first few days of HO/T operations there in November 2012.
Quote from: mtantillo on September 21, 2014, 09:27:51 PM
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Virginia adopted the 2009 MUTCD on Dec. 7, 2011. The I-95 HOT lane project had not yet started.
Almost sounds like the gap in time between the time that the travel demand forecasts and the time that the final agreement between VDOT and Transurban (and presumably FHWA) was signed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2014, 10:54:54 AM
Transurban just tweeted that they expect the I-95 HO/T lanes will open in December. Previously they'd cited early 2015 as the target date. The idea of opening them right before Christmas seems like potentially a decent idea insofar as traffic volumes are almost always considerably lower for the final two weeks of the year. Recall all the wrecks on the Beltway during the first few days of HO/T operations there in November 2012.
Good time to open. Hopefully, since most of the entrances and exits have not changed, it should not have some of the safety problems that the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes experienced. Especially at the entrance on the Inner Loop near the Robinson Terminal buildings.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 09, 2014, 09:40:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2014, 10:54:54 AM
Transurban just tweeted that they expect the I-95 HO/T lanes will open in December. Previously they'd cited early 2015 as the target date. The idea of opening them right before Christmas seems like potentially a decent idea insofar as traffic volumes are almost always considerably lower for the final two weeks of the year. Recall all the wrecks on the Beltway during the first few days of HO/T operations there in November 2012.
Good time to open. Hopefully, since most of the entrances and exits have not changed, it should not have some of the safety problems that the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes experienced. Especially at the entrance on the Inner Loop near the Robinson Terminal buildings.
Agreed. I think there may be some wrecks due to people who are on autopilot following the routes they've used for years and then at the last second they say, "Oh, crap, I forgot there's a toll here now," and then they swerve wildly without looking. I take that almost as a given (especially, say, someone coming south after 6:00 PM in the reversible carriageway approaching Turkeycock). But I think there will be a lot less of it than there was on the Beltway, both because many of the exits and entrances are the same and because of the very different design.
I do think there will be rampant confusion and there will be howls of outrage a few days later (when invoices go out) from people who will claim they were unaware of the new configuration and didn't know an E-ZPass was required. I won't feel much sympathy for the vast majority of those people because anyone who drives on that road more than once or twice a year should certainly realize something major is underway that merits some level of attention, and the plethora of signs bearing the E-ZPass logo (most of which, but not all, are currently covered–the wind has pulled back some of the covers from the signs on the Inner Loop) ought to be a tip-off as well. Someone who doesn't live around here and has used that road once or twice a year for, say, Thanksgiving or Christmas trips to visit the relatives, I might have a little more sympathy because I recognize there are a
lot of signs to be read and understood.
I expect rampant confusion over the "segment-based" tolling system. Unfortunately, it's not easy to explain it in a quick manner that makes it clear how the segments work while being a short enough explanation to fit within the limited attention spans so many people have. I was thinking about offering to write an article for our HOA's newsletter because so many people in our area use the southbound HOV to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, but the space is too limited.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 10, 2014, 09:37:47 AM
I expect rampant confusion over the "segment-based" tolling system. Unfortunately, it's not easy to explain it in a quick manner that makes it clear how the segments work while being a short enough explanation to fit within the limited attention spans so many people have. I was thinking about offering to write an article for our HOA's newsletter because so many people in our area use the southbound HOV to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, but the space is too limited.
I think that is ultimately going to
hurt patronage, especially when both other toll roads in the region tell drivers what the price is to get to the other end of the tolled lanes.
Telling drivers what the price is to an intermediate point in the corridor may cause more than a few drivers to assume it is not worth it.
That and the lack of the toll lanes going all the way to the Potomac River along I-395 (which is, of course,
not Transurban's fault).
About 20 minutes ago I was coming down the I-395 HOV lanes from DC and noticed something new at Turkeycock: At the point where the left-side exit into the reversible lanes splits off, there's a new little green sign saying "ENTRANCE," with something covered up above it that's probably a purple "E-ZPass Express" banner," and then the interesting part is that underneath the word "Entrance" there is a downward-pointing arrow pointing to the left. I've never been to California, but the way the arrow was pointing reminded me of photos I've seen of California's odd "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs.
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any other time I've seen a ground-mounted sign for a ramp in Virginia using a downward-pointing arrow instead of the usual upward-pointing arrow you see on an exit sign.
No pictures. I was driving the convertible and its cigarette lighter doesn't work, so I was running the dashcam on its own battery and the battery died before I reached that point.
Telling drivers an intermediate price point makes sense in some regards. Based on 2013 volumes, roughly 1/3 of the volume at Newington exits at Springfield...presumably to access the Beltway. That's a good chunk of HOV lane users exiting at a midpoint.
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2014, 04:44:53 PM
Telling drivers an intermediate price point makes sense in some regards. Based on 2013 volumes, roughly 1/3 of the volume at Newington exits at Springfield...presumably to access the Beltway. That's a good chunk of HOV lane users exiting at a midpoint.
At the risk of putting words in his mouth (keyboard?), I don't think that's exactly what cpzilliacus meant. We were referring to how the bottom line on the toll rate signs on the I-95/I-395 HO/T lanes will not display the toll to the far end of the lanes the way it does on the Beltway–instead, the bottom line will be an "intermediate point" when you consider it in relation to the entirety of the lanes. In other words, if you view the lanes in "segments" the way Transurban does, with each "segment" ending at a spot where you can exit back into the general-purpose lanes, then you follow how the bottom line on the sign is the far end of your current "segment."
For example, I presume for me coming home from DC the first sign would presumably list the rates to the Beltway, Route 644, and then the end of the "segment" at the flyover back to the general-purpose lanes just south of Route 644. Then as I approach that flyover I'd see a second list of toll rates listing the Franconia—Springfield Parkway (my exit); either Route 1 at Woodbridge, Route 123 at Occoquan, or the Prince William Parkway; and then the end of the "segment" at the flyover near Potomac Mills Mall. Etc.
So the signs will show "intermediate price points" with respect to each "segment," as you suggest, and I agree with you they absolutely should show that, at least on the longer segments. (Maybe showing the toll to the Beltway AND Route 644 might be overkill? What might it differ by, 10¢?) Otherwise it's hard to make an educated decision whether to use the lanes. But the point cpzilliacus is making is that if you're driving a long distance, you may well pass through several "segments" and so you will have more "decision points" on whether you want to pay the toll for the next segment or instead exit back to the "free" lanes. It's unclear whether most drivers will understand that aspect of the signage. I suspect many won't, at least not at first.
The benefit of this system in terms of the lanes' operation is that it allows Transurban to adjust the rates for the different segments independently from each other to manage the amount of traffic. If there's a wreck in the morning near, say, the Lorton Road overpass, they could jack the rate up between the Prince William Parkway and Newington to discourage people from entering or staying on the HO/T lanes through there (there is to be a new slip ramp back OUT of the HO/T lanes as you pass under the Prince William Parkway), then have a lower rate as you reach the entrance located just south of Newington. I'm going to be interested in seeing how it all works in practice, although I don't drive south on I-95 all that often these days. For our trips to Florida I've been using Route 29 just for a change of pace from I-95, but if the lanes open on schedule in early December I may use them on our way south a few days prior to Christmas just to see how it's working.
I wonder what the wording will be like for the line showing the toll at the end of the segment. Given the limited space and the need for quick readability it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
Something like "X-OVER to Exits 123 and north" might be too long.
Also, hopefully they will identify the segments by.......something, perhaps a letter and/or a color coded signs?
That's a great question. I haven't seen that addressed in any of their publicity materials.
Edited to add: They've updated their website. It looks like they'll say, for example, "95-N/644," which I assume would denote the flyover just north of Newington. See tab 3 at the following link: http://95expresslanes.com/signage
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 27, 2014, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2014, 04:44:53 PM
Telling drivers an intermediate price point makes sense in some regards. Based on 2013 volumes, roughly 1/3 of the volume at Newington exits at Springfield...presumably to access the Beltway. That's a good chunk of HOV lane users exiting at a midpoint.
At the risk of putting words in his mouth (keyboard?), I don't think that's exactly what cpzilliacus meant. We were referring to how the bottom line on the toll rate signs on the I-95/I-395 HO/T lanes will not display the toll to the far end of the lanes the way it does on the Beltway–instead, the bottom line will be an "intermediate point" when you consider it in relation to the entirety of the lanes. In other words, if you view the lanes in "segments" the way Transurban does, with each "segment" ending at a spot where you can exit back into the general-purpose lanes, then you follow how the bottom line on the sign is the far end of your current "segment."
Thank you. That was exactly what I meant.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 27, 2014, 05:04:45 PM
For example, I presume for me coming home from DC the first sign would presumably list the rates to the Beltway, Route 644, and then the end of the "segment" at the flyover back to the general-purpose lanes just south of Route 644. Then as I approach that flyover I'd see a second list of toll rates listing the Franconia—Springfield Parkway (my exit); either Route 1 at Woodbridge, Route 123 at Occoquan, or the Prince William Parkway; and then the end of the "segment" at the flyover near Potomac Mills Mall. Etc.
Yes. I
really dislike that scheme, and I think it may discourage use by paying (non-HOV) customers.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 27, 2014, 05:04:45 PM
So the signs will show "intermediate price points" with respect to each "segment," as you suggest, and I agree with you they absolutely should show that, at least on the longer segments. (Maybe showing the toll to the Beltway AND Route 644 might be overkill? What might it differ by, 10¢?) Otherwise it's hard to make an educated decision whether to use the lanes. But the point cpzilliacus is making is that if you're driving a long distance, you may well pass through several "segments" and so you will have more "decision points" on whether you want to pay the toll for the next segment or instead exit back to the "free" lanes. It's unclear whether most drivers will understand that aspect of the signage. I suspect many won't, at least not at first.
Agreed. It bothers me that Transurban did not adopt a pricing and sign scheme similar to what they used on the Capital Beltway - or, for that matter, the way that MdTA signs at the entrances to Md. 200.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 27, 2014, 05:04:45 PM
The benefit of this system in terms of the lanes' operation is that it allows Transurban to adjust the rates for the different segments independently from each other to manage the amount of traffic. If there's a wreck in the morning near, say, the Lorton Road overpass, they could jack the rate up between the Prince William Parkway and Newington to discourage people from entering or staying on the HO/T lanes through there (there is to be a new slip ramp back OUT of the HO/T lanes as you pass under the Prince William Parkway), then have a lower rate as you reach the entrance located just south of Newington. I'm going to be interested in seeing how it all works in practice, although I don't drive south on I-95 all that often these days. For our trips to Florida I've been using Route 29 just for a change of pace from I-95, but if the lanes open on schedule in early December I may use them on our way south a few days prior to Christmas just to see how it's working.
I realize that Transurban has a legal right to maximize its toll revenues, and I have no dispute with that. But this scheme appears (IMO) to one that may discourage patronage.
IMO, it seems odd that one could not lock in a toll rate from the moment of entry into the tollway. Does anybody know of any other tollway with variable pricing that does it this way?
You do lock in the cost of the segment at the time you enter it.
I think congestion pricing on toll roads longer than a few miles has drawbacks as indicated above. Imagine the Penna Tpk doing congestion pricing. You wouldn't set a rate for the whole length based on congestion because the congestion will likely be very different by the time you reach the other end. The 95/395 project is of course much shorter but still long enough that congestion variation is likely, especially given that there are many entrances and exits that will be available once it all opens up. The point about people leaving the 95 lanes when they reach the beltway is valid...this can create quite a different congestion pattern on either side of the beltway.
I would even argue the 495 express lanes can suffer from this as well. Around Christmas when everyone is going to Tysons Corner, will the full length toll be high because it is congested around the Tyson's exits at the north end of the express lanes?
Mapmikey
Quote from: mrsman on October 28, 2014, 11:41:18 PM
IMO, it seems odd that one could not lock in a toll rate from the moment of entry into the tollway. Does anybody know of any other tollway with variable pricing that does it this way?
Certainly Md. 200 and the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes do not, and
both announce to drivers what the toll is to reach the other end of the toll road or toll lanes.
I understand that Transurban is doing it to maximize revenues across the entire facility on I-95/I-395, and they are taking advantage of exit points where drivers that do not wish to pay the higher toll will be able to return to the "free" parallel lanes.
But I still think it is a
very bad idea and will alienate and anger patrons.
Drove the I-495 HOV/toll lanes southbound yesterday in the P.M. peak commute periods from the entrance south of Va. 193 to I-66. Cost $3.10.
The charge all the way to the other end between Va. 620 and I-95 was $7.60.
The Post's Dr. Gridlock reports the I-95 HO/T signs will start to be uncovered this weekend, the idea being (a) to give people a few weeks to see them before the lanes begin operations and (b) to allow adequate time to uncover the 300+ signs that have been posted as part of the project.
Edited to add: I was just over in Springfield and it appears they've already started uncovering some of them. One of the toll rate signs had the top purple portion uncovered with the VMS portion reading something like "Express Lanes Open This December."
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7440526,-77.1876591,3a,75y,212.74h,112.48t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sywzCPr6AOeVEym8142oStg!2e0
Could this mean 95-HOT is including variable speed limits? If it is, it would be interesting if they could go up to 70mph at times.
Quote from: GamePancakes on October 30, 2014, 07:58:09 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7440526,-77.1876591,3a,75y,212.74h,112.48t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sywzCPr6AOeVEym8142oStg!2e0
Could this mean 95-HOT is including variable speed limits? If it is, it would be interesting if they could go up to 70mph at times.
They will indeed have variable limits, but so far they've said they won't exceed 65.
The speed limit study for the Beltway lanes showed 70 mph would have been appropriate, but VDOT refused to allow it.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 30, 2014, 09:52:15 PM
Quote from: GamePancakes on October 30, 2014, 07:58:09 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7440526,-77.1876591,3a,75y,212.74h,112.48t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sywzCPr6AOeVEym8142oStg!2e0
Could this mean 95-HOT is including variable speed limits? If it is, it would be interesting if they could go up to 70mph at times.
They will indeed have variable limits, but so far they've said they won't exceed 65.
The speed limit study for the Beltway lanes showed 70 mph would have been appropriate, but VDOT refused to allow it.
I do not recall the speed limits in Virginia's part of the Capital Beltway ever being above 60 MPH pre-NMSL. Maryland did allow 70 MPH on parts of the Beltway in Prince George's County pre-NMSL.
But I suspect that the 85th percentile speeds in the Beltway in Fairfax County are probably better than 65 MPH, as they are on most of it in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties.
QuoteBut I suspect that the 85th percentile speeds in the Beltway in Fairfax County are probably better than 65 MPH, as they are on most of it in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties.
In my experience, they're about mid-60s on both sides of the Potomac...
According to this article (see link below), the 85th percentile speed in the HO/T lanes was 70 mph when they did the traffic study, but it doesn't give a figure for the general-purpose lanes. Of course, it's to be expected the HO/T lanes would have a higher average speed.
http://www.wtop.com/41/3351447/Beltway-Express-Lanes-speed-limit-raised-to-65-mph
When I'm in the general-purpose lanes I try to keep it to 65. I don't pass many people.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 31, 2014, 07:26:39 AM
According to this article (see link below), the 85th percentile speed in the HO/T lanes was 70 mph when they did the traffic study, but it doesn't give a figure for the general-purpose lanes. Of course, it's to be expected the HO/T lanes would have a higher average speed.
http://www.wtop.com/41/3351447/Beltway-Express-Lanes-speed-limit-raised-to-65-mph
When I'm in the general-purpose lanes I try to keep it to 65. I don't pass many people.
When I drove from the north end south to I-66 the other day, I kept it between 55 and 60 in the middle of the P.M. peak period (which was scorching fast compared to the "free" lanes, especially between Va. 7 and I-66).
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2014, 04:44:53 PM
Telling drivers an intermediate price point makes sense in some regards. Based on 2013 volumes, roughly 1/3 of the volume at Newington exits at Springfield...presumably to access the Beltway. That's a good chunk of HOV lane users exiting at a midpoint.
Only a third? On weekends, I'd say it is more like 90%.
Google Streetview had put some streetview look of I-495 HOT lanes, here one from September 2014. http://goo.gl/maps/geRU4
WTOP Radio: Survey: Most commuters not ready for the 95 Express Lanes opening in December (http://www.wtop.com/654/3747286/Commuters-not-ready-for-I-95-changes)
QuoteA new survey from the Virginia Department of Transportation and Transurban finds that many drivers are still not ready for the 95 Express Lanes to open next month.
QuoteThe 29 miles of toll lanes will run from Garrisonville Road to north of Edsall Road in Alexandria. The specific opening date is expected to be announced soon.
QuoteAccording to the survey, only 32 percent of carpoolers who travel along the Interstate 95 portion of the express lanes have an E-ZPass Flex, which they'll need to use the lanes for free.
QuoteCarpoolers and sluggers must purchase an E-ZPass Flex and switch it into HOV mode to receive the free trip. Drivers can purchase an E-ZPass Flex at Wegmans, Giant, AAA Mid-Atlantic or E-ZPass service centers. You can also get one online.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 21, 2014, 01:17:15 PM
WTOP Radio: Survey: Most commuters not ready for the 95 Express Lanes opening in December (http://www.wtop.com/654/3747286/Commuters-not-ready-for-I-95-changes)
QuoteA new survey from the Virginia Department of Transportation and Transurban finds that many drivers are still not ready for the 95 Express Lanes to open next month.
QuoteThe 29 miles of toll lanes will run from Garrisonville Road to north of Edsall Road in Alexandria. The specific opening date is expected to be announced soon.
QuoteAccording to the survey, only 32 percent of carpoolers who travel along the Interstate 95 portion of the express lanes have an E-ZPass Flex, which they'll need to use the lanes for free.
QuoteCarpoolers and sluggers must purchase an E-ZPass Flex and switch it into HOV mode to receive the free trip. Drivers can purchase an E-ZPass Flex at Wegmans, Giant, AAA Mid-Atlantic or E-ZPass service centers. You can also get one online.
Not terribly unusual. Most people will hold off until the week before or week after. And they'll complain no one told them about the switch as well.
Looks like today they were out testing the traffic control system. The green arrows and red X signs as well as the speed limit signs were on. Speed limit is 65 btw.
I'm worried about what happens on opening day. But 32% with E-ZPass, that's good, right? Carpool drivers are the only ones who need it, not riders, so really only 33% of carpoolers need one. In fact if riders have one with them, they risk getting double charged.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 23, 2014, 06:24:39 PM
Looks like today they were out testing the traffic control system. The green arrows and red X signs as well as the speed limit signs were on. Speed limit is 65 btw.
I'm worried about what happens on opening day. But 32% with E-ZPass, that's good, right? Carpool drivers are the only ones who need it, not riders, so really only 33% of carpoolers need one. In fact if riders have one with them, they risk getting double charged.
I still think there will be a fair number of HOV-3 drivers that will be very angry when the Transurban bills and violation notices start to show up in their mailboxes, probably in January, about the time that the Virginia General Assembly convenes in Richmond.
Though I am sure that many people will complain to their county and federal elected officials, even though they are relatively blameless (to the extent there is blame to be had) in this.
Along several of the NJ Turnpike exits there are signs stating "EZ Pass Cars Only May Use Shoulder 4pm - 7pm". Most of them are due to the beginnings of EZ Pass, when relatively few had EZ Pass and the cash lanes were congested with traffic along the entire exit ramp. As people finally got the tags, the cash lane jams dwindled. This took a few months to finally occur. Except for interchange 3, rarely does EZ Pass traffic have to use the shoulder.
As for the Virginia HOT lanes, expect a relatively similar ramp-up period. It will take some time...and some violation notices...for people to finally get the message.
(Edited to add similar in my final paragraph)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2014, 08:15:54 PM
Along several of the NJ Turnpike exits there are signs stating "EZ Pass Cars Only May Use Shoulder 4pm - 7pm". Most of them are due to the beginnings of EZ Pass, when relatively few had EZ Pass and the cash lanes were congested with traffic along the entire exit ramp. As people finally got the tags, the cash lane jams dwindled. This took a few months to finally occur. Except for interchange 3, rarely does EZ Pass traffic have to use the shoulder.
As for the Virginia HOT lanes, expect a relatively ramp-up period. It will take some time...and some violation notices...for people to finally get the message.
The ones on the Beltway have been open since November 2012. Some people still claim they're being screwed. Almost all of them aren't using their E-ZPasses properly.
One cannot claim to be a user of the 95 HOV lanes now and not be aware that an EZ pass is required to use the lanes in all situations when it converts to HOT lanes in December. There are tons of electronic signs, banners, and standalone signs alerting users to this fact. These have been up several weeks now. I do agree with those who believe the structure of the tolling on these lanes will come as a surprise.
Oddly, the lane control and electronic speed limit signs mentioned by mtantillo above are only on the section that will be 3 lanes. South of Dale City there are no lane control signs and the speed limit 65 sign is a standard sign.
They have also installed full-size interstate mile markers every two-tenths (no route shield on them).
I also think there will be a lot of wrecks NB at the beginning of the HOT lanes in Garrisonville. Not sure why they didn't have a flyover entrance ramp for this...there is a lot of traffic getting onto 95 at Exit 143 SR 610 and the weaving will be steady trying to get left to reach the on ramp. Even today there are accordion wrecks approaching the current HOV beginning in Triangle quite regularly and the number of people getting on 95 NB at Exit 150 is tiny compared to Exit 143.
I'm also not a fan of the SB ending of the new lanes. Slow merge-weave right at the exit for SR 610 that will never be free-flowing in afternoon rush. Why not extend the through traffic to 95 south HOV lane past SR 610?
[/rant]
Mapmikey
I believe–this is an educated guess–the reason for the lane control signals and the variable speed limits being solely on the three-lane portion is that said portion lacks full shoulders, especially on the side adjacent to the southbound carriageway because there's essentially no shoulder at all on that side. On the two-lane portion (south of the Prince William Parkway, for those who haven't used the reversible lanes recently) there is a full shoulder on each side. I believe the intention is to use the lane control signals and variable speed limits to funnel traffic in the three-lane portion to whichever lanes are not blocked when there's an incident like an accident or a breakdown.
The Post's Dr. Gridlock thinks the HO/T conversion will occur the weekend of December 13—14. We'll see. I hope it's open on December 20 so I can use it for the beginning of our Christmas trip south.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 24, 2014, 09:32:13 AM
One cannot claim to be a user of the 95 HOV lanes now and not be aware that an EZ pass is required to use the lanes in all situations when it converts to HOT lanes in December. There are tons of electronic signs, banners, and standalone signs alerting users to this fact. These have been up several weeks now. I do agree with those who believe the structure of the tolling on these lanes will come as a surprise.
I respectfully disagree. People driving the corridor have other things on their mind (like getting to and from work), other than the work that's been going on in this corridor, are likely not paying that much attention (I
categorically exclude everyone that reads AAROADS from that category).
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 24, 2014, 09:32:13 AM
Oddly, the lane control and electronic speed limit signs mentioned by mtantillo above are only on the section that will be 3 lanes. South of Dale City there are no lane control signs and the speed limit 65 sign is a standard sign.
I have noticed that too. Maybe because the shoulders south of Dale City are reasonably wide, while those north of Dale City (as far as the north end of the HOV/Toll facility) at Turkeycock Run have been narrowed to allow for three travel lanes.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 24, 2014, 09:32:13 AM
They have also installed full-size interstate mile markers every two-tenths (no route shield on them).
An improvement over what was there before (no mile markers in the HOV lane roadway at all).
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 24, 2014, 09:32:13 AM
I also think there will be a lot of wrecks NB at the beginning of the HOT lanes in Garrisonville. Not sure why they didn't have a flyover entrance ramp for this...there is a lot of traffic getting onto 95 at Exit 143 SR 610 and the weaving will be steady trying to get left to reach the on ramp. Even today there are accordion wrecks approaching the current HOV beginning in Triangle quite regularly and the number of people getting on 95 NB at Exit 150 is tiny compared to Exit 143.
Good question.
Though my bigger concern is at the
other end of the HOV/Toll lanes and the beginning of the HOV lanes at Turkeycock Run. I see a potential for big problems in the A.M. and P.M. commute periods there.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 24, 2014, 09:32:13 AM
I'm also not a fan of the SB ending of the new lanes. Slow merge-weave right at the exit for SR 610 that will never be free-flowing in afternoon rush. Why not extend the through traffic to 95 south HOV lane past SR 610?
[/rant]
Mapmikey
Why not run these lanes all the way south to U.S. 17 (Warrenton Road), or, even better, to Massaponax?
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 24, 2014, 10:42:03 AM
I believe–this is an educated guess–the reason for the lane control signals and the variable speed limits being solely on the three-lane portion is that said portion lacks full shoulders, especially on the side adjacent to the southbound carriageway because there's essentially no shoulder at all on that side. On the two-lane portion (south of the Prince William Parkway, for those who haven't used the reversible lanes recently) there is a full shoulder on each side. I believe the intention is to use the lane control signals and variable speed limits to funnel traffic in the three-lane portion to whichever lanes are not blocked when there's an incident like an accident or a breakdown.
Agreed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 24, 2014, 10:42:03 AM
The Post's Dr. Gridlock thinks the HO/T conversion will occur the weekend of December 13—14. We'll see. I hope it's open on December 20 so I can use it for the beginning of our Christmas trip south.
I may check them out on my own during the winter holiday break, but otherwise, I am staying away from them until everyone is reasonably used to using those lanes in the reconfigured state.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 24, 2014, 04:09:11 PM
I may check them out on my own during the winter holiday break, but otherwise, I am staying away from them until everyone is reasonably used to using those lanes in the reconfigured state.
On an ordinary weekday I'd probably do the same, but since we're shooting to hit the road at 7:00 on a Saturday morning, I'm not going to worry (I figure we'll use the big loop ramp from the Beltway rather than entering from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway).
QuoteI respectfully disagree. People driving the corridor have other things on their mind (like getting to and from work), other than the work that's been going on in this corridor, are likely not paying that much attention
If they are not paying attention, that's not VDOT's fault, or the contractor's fault. If they're driving, they should be paying attention to the road and what's on the road. That's the basics of driving.
Quote from: froggie on November 25, 2014, 03:13:27 PM
QuoteI respectfully disagree. People driving the corridor have other things on their mind (like getting to and from work), other than the work that's been going on in this corridor, are likely not paying that much attention
If they are not paying attention, that's not VDOT's fault, or the contractor's fault. If they're driving, they should be paying attention to the road and what's on the road. That's the basics of driving.
I think froggie is correct. There are some
very large ads in place in the reversible carriageway, both full-color banners attached to overpasses and freestanding signs in the nature of (though not quite the same as) billboards, all of which have messages similar to "Everyone needs an E-ZPass" or "Carpoolers need an E-ZPass Flex" or the like. Even if you've been driving that road for many years, I kind of feel that the combination of two years of construction combined with a bunch of new road signs combined with a series of banners about E-ZPass being required should cause even someone totally unaware of the impending HO/T conversion to say, "Hey, what's this about E-ZPass?" and to do a little investigation.
But, of course, we all know it's virtually impossible to educate people who are not willing to educate themselves. I think some people engage in what the legal system calls "willful blindless"–they actively avoid information they know they won't like so they can claim "I didn't know." The legal system is not sympathetic to those people and I don't think any of us would be either. There are others who are, frankly, just stupid. I continue to be surprised at how clueless some people can be, such as the lady who wrote to Dr. Gridlock in 2012, shortly before the Beltway lanes opened, asking why she would need an E-ZPass on I-66. Look, I can understand not knowing the nuances of how the HO/T lanes will work, but being completely ignorant of the project? I don't get that, at least not if you live in Northern Virginia. The Beltway project was probably
the central fact (and inconvenience!) of Northern Virginia transportation for the four or five years before it opened. (The Silver Line would have been second in my mind; I put it second because its construction didn't have the same immediate day-to-day effect on thousands of commuters and travellers that the Beltway construction did.)
I get that the I-95 project is a bit of a different animal because it's converting existing lanes that have continued to operate, pretty much as normal during commuting hours, during the reconstruction process. Also, it seems like I-95 and I-395 have been under construction in Northern Virginia pretty much forever (1970s reconstruction; late 1980s/early 1990s southern extension of HOV system; 1999—2007 Springfield Interchange reconstruction; subsequent addition of fourth lane down to Occoquan; current HO/T lane project; current widening from Landmark to Seminary Road; current project to add HOV ramp on south side of Seminary interchange), and I'm sure to some degree people who have commuted through the never-ending construction must reach a point where they roll their eyes and just figure it's yet another project. I get that. But at the same time, even if you get on autopilot I have to think you'd notice the wholesale replacement of pretty much all the signs on the reversible carriageway and the appearance of "E-ZPass Express" signage that
cannot, due to its location, be referring to the existing lanes on the Beltway.
BTW, I've probably said this before, but I think the thing about which the carpoolers/slug drivers have a legitimate beef is the requirement that in order to obtain an E-ZPass Flex you have to put up $35 per transponder (that is, to borrow the SunPass terminology, fund the account with $35 of prepaid tolls). The carpoolers were promised a free ride on the HO/T lanes and the repeal of the E-ZPass monthly fee means they won't have to pay a dollar a month, but they still have to give the Commonwealth a $35 interest-free loan in the form of funding the E-ZPass account. I can certainly understand why that will rankle a lot of carpoolers who don't already have E-ZPass transponders. On the other hand, I'm not sure how the Commonwealth could police it. If they waive the requirement that you fund the account, anyone could SAY "I'm only going to use it for carpooling," get a zero-balance transponder, and then run tollbooths (I think this would be a very dumb thing to do, of course). Maybe the solution is to amend the E-ZPass rules so that VDOT must analyze Flex users' accounts every three or six months and, if indeed a given user is using the device solely for carpooling, they could lower that user's balance to a lesser amount by crediting most of the initial payment back to the card used to fund the account?
Quote from: froggie on November 25, 2014, 03:13:27 PM
QuoteI respectfully disagree. People driving the corridor have other things on their mind (like getting to and from work), other than the work that's been going on in this corridor, are likely not paying that much attention
If they are not paying attention, that's not VDOT's fault, or the contractor's fault. If they're driving, they should be paying attention to the road and what's on the road. That's the basics of driving.
Adam, I do not dispute your opinion, which I very much agree with.
But it contrasts with the unpleasant reality, which is that many drivers do not think about much what goes on around them (perhaps made worse by many drivers during the peak commute periods who are very focused on getting to and from work, and nothing else).
My wife sent me this link this morning–WTOP has a video tour (going northbound) of the new nine-mile portion of reversible lanes south of the current HOV lanes' terminus. Nothing anyone here wasn't already aware of, and most of us knew what the lanes would look like, but here's the link anyway for anyone who's interested.
I e-mailed my wife back and said what Transurban ought to do is to post a series of videos filmed on the road on their website showing the entry/exit points and showing how the toll rate signs work, especially the signs as you hit a new "segment." Example, "If you're on the Fairfax County Parkway and you want to go south on the Express Lanes, this is the route you follow." "If you're on the Express Lanes, you will see a sign like this one. That means you have to decide whether you want to pay that toll or whether you want to exit back out to the mainline." Etc. While they have some maps on their website, I think we've seen from when the Beltway project opened that there's something valuable to the idea of having video or photos showing what people will actually see when they're on the road, rather than abstract diagrams.
http://www.wtop.com/654/3755883/Preview-of-the-95-Express-Lanes
Thanks for that link. The video was a bit too boring for my tastes, but the lanes themselves look great.
Also, is it standard to use those boom (I think those are what those gates are called) gates at the entry ways to the lanes? HOT lanes are a rather foreign concept to me, being from New Jersey and all.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 04, 2014, 10:16:42 AM
Thanks for that link. The video was a bit too boring for my tastes, but the lanes themselves look great.
Also, is it standard to use those boom (I think those are what those gates are called) gates at the entry ways to the lanes? HOT lanes are a rather foreign concept to me, being from New Jersey and all.
It's standard on that road because the lanes are reversible, not because they're HOV or HO/T. Notice, BTW, that both shoulders are delineated with white lines (no yellow). That's because either lane can be to the driver's left or the driver's right depending on which way they're operating.
It's a little more complicated than this, but essentially, during the morning they run towards DC, then around lunchtime they close them for awhile before reopening them with them running away from DC. Repeat late at night. The weekend schedule is different.
For obvious reasons, though, it wouldn't do to have northbound traffic entering the lanes when they're operating southbound. If you had two vehicles going 75 mph approaching head-on, they'd be closing on each other at an effective 150 mph. Hence why they have the gates in place. When they're reversing the direction, let's say at midday, VDOT requires that all the northbound gates be closed before the southbound gates are opened. They literally have a guy in a truck drive the lanes starting at the southern end. I don't know if he actually does something to close the gates, but he is required to confirm that each set of gates has closed. (Mike has pointed out that logic would suggest they could open southbound access points as the truck goes by–that is, the truck driver drives the lanes, confirms the northbound gates are closed and that no traffic remains on the lanes, so he opens the southbound gates as he reaches them. I don't know why they don't do it that way, but I assume it's absolute paranoia about the possibility of head-on wrecks.)
Ah, I completely forgot that these are reversible lanes, yet another foreign concept to me. Now that makes much more sense. (-1 for me not reading your original post 1995hoo :banghead: )
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 04, 2014, 10:21:31 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 04, 2014, 10:16:42 AM
Thanks for that link. The video was a bit too boring for my tastes, but the lanes themselves look great.
Also, is it standard to use those boom (I think those are what those gates are called) gates at the entry ways to the lanes? HOT lanes are a rather foreign concept to me, being from New Jersey and all.
It's standard on that road because the lanes are reversible, not because they're HOV or HO/T. Notice, BTW, that both shoulders are delineated with white lines (no yellow). That's because either lane can be to the driver's left or the driver's right depending on which way they're operating.
It's a little more complicated than this, but essentially, during the morning they run towards DC, then around lunchtime they close them for awhile before reopening them with them running away from DC. Repeat late at night. The weekend schedule is different.
For obvious reasons, though, it wouldn't do to have northbound traffic entering the lanes when they're operating southbound. If you had two vehicles going 75 mph approaching head-on, they'd be closing on each other at an effective 150 mph. Hence why they have the gates in place. When they're reversing the direction, let's say at midday, VDOT requires that all the northbound gates be closed before the southbound gates are opened. They literally have a guy in a truck drive the lanes starting at the southern end. I don't know if he actually does something to close the gates, but he is required to confirm that each set of gates has closed. (Mike has pointed out that logic would suggest they could open southbound access points as the truck goes by—that is, the truck driver drives the lanes, confirms the northbound gates are closed and that no traffic remains on the lanes, so he opens the southbound gates as he reaches them. I don't know why they don't do it that way, but I assume it's absolute paranoia about the possibility of head-on wrecks.)
I would hope they are automated...and the ones where the automation is broken are the only ones the driver needs to manually close.
I guess they would also need to verify any broken down vehicles are removed from the shoulder, in case someone decides to come back, get the car started, then starts heading in the wrong direction.
Yeah, I agree with you on assuming they should be automated, such that the guy is simply verifying that they closed, but I don't know. mtantillo might.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 04, 2014, 10:21:31 AM
I don't know if he actually does something to close the gates, but he is required to confirm that each set of gates has closed. (Mike has pointed out that logic would suggest they could open southbound access points as the truck goes by–that is, the truck driver drives the lanes, confirms the northbound gates are closed and that no traffic remains on the lanes, so he opens the southbound gates as he reaches them. I don't know why they don't do it that way, but I assume it's absolute paranoia about the possibility of head-on wrecks.)
Some years ago, I know the gates were closed and opened from a control center in Arlington County, but I believe all of that has now moved to VDOT's (relatively) new facility in Fairfax County.
Not sure if Transurban or VDOT will be responsible for opening and closing the gates once the change to HOV/Toll lane operation happens.
Crossing my fingers as I say this, but I have not heard of even one head-on wreck happening on the reversible lanes of I-95/I-395 in the many years they have been in operation.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 04, 2014, 02:12:37 PM
Yeah, I agree with you on assuming they should be automated, such that the guy is simply verifying that they closed, but I don't know. mtantillo might.
They are automated.
I've always wondered how fast the gates go down. Any warning the gates are about to go down? I assume they go down one by one, since I believe there's about a half-dozen gates tapered in length at the entrances to direct a vehicle left to right away from the closed lanes and back to the main lanes.
Anyone know if cars have crashed through a few of the gates as they closed upon them?
The changable message signs either list a traffic restriction (OPEN TO ALL, HOV-3+ ONLY, etc.) when the lanes are open. They will then change to "GATES CLOSING, MERGE RIGHT", "GATES CLOSING, DO NOT ENTER", etc. then after a couple of minutes the gates will close and the signs will change to say "GATES CLOSED DO NOT ENTER" (usually just replacing the word closing with closed).
I've floored it through there near the Pentagon when the sign said "GATES CLOSING, MERGE RIGHT." The gates were open far enough that I could easily make it through when I downshifted and stomped on the accelerator.
All the gates swing closed in unison near the Pentagon. I can't say I've ever really noticed or paid attention elsewhere.
Finally found some info on tolling segments. WTOP has an online FAQ (link below) that includes the following. This may or may not be accurate, of course, but it's the first statement I've found anywhere saying where the segments will break. It only refers to northbound, though.
"I'm going to drive the entire 29 miles from Stafford to Alexandria. Can I lock in one toll at Garrisonville Road?
"No; you will have to pay two tolls. Transurban will charge one toll from Garrisonville Road to the Fairfax County Parkway, then another to Edsall Road.
"Transurban expects most of the traffic on I-95 to be between the Fairfax County Parkway and Edsall Road, and says traffic conditions could change in Fairfax County while a driver travels between Stafford and Prince William County.
"Therefore, a commuter can only lock in a rate until Fairfax County Parkway, then must decide whether to pay a second toll to Edsall Road, or avoid the toll and exit into the main lanes."
http://wtop.com/654/3751471/Express-Lanes-QA
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2014, 09:19:46 AM
"Therefore, a commuter can only lock in a rate until Fairfax County Parkway, then must decide whether to pay a second toll to Edsall Road, or avoid the toll and exit into the main lanes."
I
really dislike this.
Not because I have any problem with varied tolls (higher during peak demand times), but because there is (IMO) no justification for such an approach (and customers like to know what the full cost will be for a trip as they enter), and it will give such projects a
very bad name around Virginia, the Washington area and the rest of the country.
This new map on the Express Lanes site appears to show where the segments will be. The yellow "Decision Point" banner shows where segments end because at those points, you must decide whether to pay the toll for the next segment or exit back to the local lanes.
Link to map: http://www.95expresslanes.com/pdfs/95_Express_Lanes_Access_Map.pdf
Northbound, two segments:
(1) All access points south of Newington up to the existing flyover back to the local lanes located just north of the mainline's Exit 166 (the Fairfax County Parkway at Newington); there is one new slip ramp back to the local lanes in this segment, but it won't be used as a dividing point between segments
(2) From said flyover north to Turkeycock (includes four access points into the lanes, three from other roads and one slip ramp from the mainline)
Southbound, three segments:
(1) Turkeycock to the existing flyover immediately to the south of the Route 644 interchange (the flyover is shown in the wrong place on the linked map; this segment has two access points into the lanes, at Turkeycock and the ramps from the Beltway)
(2) From said flyover south to the existing flyover to the mainline located alongside Potomac Mills Mall (the yellow "Decision Point" note is in the wrong place on the map; this segment has four access points into the lanes–a slip ramp from the mainline roughly next to the Backlick Road exit, a new entrance still under construction from Heller Road at the Fort Belvoir Proving Grounds, a new entrance from Alban Road/Boudinot Drive in Newington, and a new slip ramp in the US-1 Exit 161 complex at the southern end of Shirley Highway)
(3) From Potomac Mills flyover south to the lanes' end near Aquia (only one access point into the lanes, a new slip ramp in the Dale Boulevard/Opitz Boulevard area)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2014, 09:19:46 AM
"Therefore, a commuter can only lock in a rate until Fairfax County Parkway, then must decide whether to pay a second toll to Edsall Road, or avoid the toll and exit into the main lanes."
I really dislike this.
Not because I have any problem with varied tolls (higher during peak demand times), but because there is (IMO) no justification for such an approach (and customers like to know what the full cost will be for a trip as they enter), and it will give such projects a very bad name around Virginia, the Washington area and the rest of the country.
I predict that the impending disaster coming with the opening of these lanes could very well spend the end of HOT lanes and privately funded PPTA projects in Virginia in the future.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 05, 2014, 03:54:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2014, 09:19:46 AM
"Therefore, a commuter can only lock in a rate until Fairfax County Parkway, then must decide whether to pay a second toll to Edsall Road, or avoid the toll and exit into the main lanes."
I really dislike this.
Not because I have any problem with varied tolls (higher during peak demand times), but because there is (IMO) no justification for such an approach (and customers like to know what the full cost will be for a trip as they enter), and it will give such projects a very bad name around Virginia, the Washington area and the rest of the country.
I predict that the impending disaster coming with the opening of these lanes could very well spend the end of HOT lanes and privately funded PPTA projects in Virginia in the future.
Let's just say that I share and agree with your concerns.
Our late boss at the office, Ron Kirby, Ph.D. was a fan of pricing of scarce road capacity from decades ago, and I now think he was right (I was pretty skeptical before all-electronic toll technologies like E-ZPass were perfected - but after seeing AET (albeit not E-ZPass) work on the then-new Highway 407 in Ontario back in 1997, I was sold).
WAMU Radio: New Ride On I-95 In Northern Virginia Will Be Pricey (http://wamu.org/news/14/12/05/new_ride_on_i_95_in_northern_virginia_will_be_pricey)
QuoteCommuting in the I-95 corridor in Northern Virginia is about to change, possibly for the better, but the faster ride will not be cheap unless you are in an HOV-3 carpool.
QuoteThe typical toll on the 95 Express Lanes, 30 miles of EZ Pass-only toll lanes between Garrisonville Road in Stafford County and Edsall Road in Fairfax County, is expected to cost between $6 and $8, according to the construction conglomerate hired by Virginia to pave the asphalt and erect the toll gantries, Fluor-Transurban. And that is for using only a portion of the road, as the typical trip length is expected to run about 10 miles. HOV-3 carpoolers ride free 24/7.
QuoteWhat you will pay will vary depending on where you enter and exit the Express Lanes. The southern stretch where traffic volume is lighter could cost about 20 cents per mile. The northern stretch, heading into the Springfield interchange where traffic volume is heavy on a normal workday, could run about 80 cents per mile.
We should learn sometime today when HO/T operations will begin on I-95. There's some sort of ceremony somewhere in Alexandria today to mark the project's completion (although the new Heller Road ramp is not yet complete) and apparently they'll announce it then.
Can't come soon enough. I was listening to WTOP while getting dressed this morning and the traffic report said the reversible carriageway was snarled in Newington because this morning's wind had knocked over a construction barrel, which broke apart into many pieces (I assume it got hit by a truck or bus) and resulted in there being plastic shards all over the highway. Ugh. Presumably the barrel was one of the ones blocking off the new third lane.
Edited to update:
The Express Lanes are to open this coming Sunday but will be free until December 29 to allow for additional testing of the tolling equipment. HOV will be in effect during the current HOV hours.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/12/10/95-express-lanes-to-open-temporarily-free-on-sunday/
This is a poorly worded Post headline to announce this. By suggesting drivers can try the lanes for free, it suggests that I as a non-HOV qualifier can use the lanes, whereas the explanation further down clearly says I cannot during rush hour.
Between now and Dec 29 there is no change in how the lanes operate from today, only that there will be 3 lanes north of Dale City and that they now extend to Garrisonville...
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 10, 2014, 11:01:46 AM
This is a poorly worded Post headline to announce this. By suggesting drivers can try the lanes for free, it suggests that I as a non-HOV qualifier can use the lanes, whereas the explanation further down clearly says I cannot during rush hour.
Between now and Dec 29 there is no change in how the lanes operate from today, only that there will be 3 lanes north of Dale City and that they now extend to Garrisonville...
Mapmikey
I don't like the way they keep saying "Express Lanes opening" because two of the three lanes are already "open" most of the time (main exceptions being when they're reversing the direction or when they're closed for construction) and because the existing reversible lanes have been called the "express lanes" by many people for a good 40 years now. It's not like the Beltway where they constructed four entirely new lanes that are "express" in the New York Subway sense of not giving access to every interchange. Rather, they're beginning a new system of operating the existing express facility and making a tweak to the traffic pattern by adding a third lane. It's one reason why in some of my comments here and elsewhere I've referred to when "HO/T operations begin" or to the "HO/T conversion." (I adopted froggie's preference for that slash a long time ago because I feel it emphasizes "high-occupancy OR toll" and because I prefer to say "H-O-T" as three letters to be analogous to "HOV"–you don't say it like "huv lanes.")
I was just in Arlington on business and I drove back via the I-395 HOV about half an hour ago as I type this. The overhead E-ZPass Express VMS units were switched on and were displaying alternating messages. The first sign, going up the hill past Landmark Mall, switched between "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN DEC 14" and "TOLLING BEGINS DEC 29." The next sign, just before the Duke Street overpass, switched between "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN DEC 14" and "EZPASS REQUIRED STARTING DEC 29." The signs out in the general-purpose lanes were operating the same as normal. I exited at the Beltway and noted the Express Lanes VMS there was not turned on. I thought they ought to have ALL of them emphasizing the date on which E-ZPass is required.
Also saw some new yellow diamond-shaped signs saying "VARIABLE SPEED ZONE AHEAD" with the purple "E-ZPass Express" sign on top. When I exited onto the Beltway there was a white rectangular sign saying "END VARIABLE SPEED ZONE."
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:19:39 PM
(I adopted froggie's preference for that slash a long time ago because I feel it emphasizes "high-occupancy OR toll" and because I prefer to say "H-O-T" as three letters to be analogous to "HOV"–you don't say it like "huv lanes.")
Why would hov and huv sound the same? Is this one of those weird regional vowel shifts?
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 01:22:54 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:19:39 PM
(I adopted froggie's preference for that slash a long time ago because I feel it emphasizes "high-occupancy OR toll" and because I prefer to say "H-O-T" as three letters to be analogous to "HOV"–you don't say it like "huv lanes.")
Why would hov and huv sound the same? Is this one of those weird regional vowel shifts?
My point was that you don't pronounce "HOV" as a word at all. You pronounce it as three letters, "H-O-V." I pictured that if you pronounced it as a word, it would have a short "u" sound like the letters "hov" in "hovercraft," where the "hov-" part is pronounced like "huv," not like "hove" (long "o" sound) or "hahv" ("ah" denoting a short "o" sound like in the word "froggie").
Regardless of whether the vowel is short or long or whatever, though, you say "HOV" as three letters, so by analogy I've always viewed "HO/T" or "HOT" as three letters, not as the word "hot" (although I know most people view it as a word).
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 01:33:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:31:04 PM
you don't pronounce "HOV" as a word at all
I do.
If you say so. I've never heard anyone pronounce it as a word.
I have heard it as a word though not in a really long time.
I want to call them HOOT lanes for High Occupancy Or Toll. Probably not because of how much fun I'll have using them...
Mapmikey
Well at least I'll be able to "clinch" the lanes when I drive down to NC, cause its likely the last time I'll ever be on them.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:35:36 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 01:33:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:31:04 PM
you don't pronounce "HOV" as a word at all
I do.
If you say so. I've never heard anyone pronounce it as a word.
The 64 reversible lanes in Norfolk are routinely called "the huv". I've occasionally heard the term used for the 95/395 lanes as well, though mostly by military who are from or were stationed in California or Norfolk.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 10, 2014, 03:50:40 PM
Well at least I'll be able to "clinch" the lanes when I drive down to NC, cause its likely the last time I'll ever be on them.
I'm planning to use them next Saturday morning on our Christmas trip to Florida. Getting to use them for free is a pleasant surprise. I wasn't concerned about the toll since it's minimal when viewed in terms of the entire trip, but I never object if something I expected to pay for turns out to be free.
Quote from: froggie on December 10, 2014, 03:58:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:35:36 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 01:33:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:31:04 PM
you don't pronounce "HOV" as a word at all
I do.
If you say so. I've never heard anyone pronounce it as a word.
The 64 reversible lanes in Norfolk are routinely called "the huv". I've occasionally heard the term used for the 95/395 lanes as well, though mostly by military who are from or were stationed in California or Norfolk.
I know someone who used to call them "The Hove". She was from Florida (Fort Lauderdale).
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 10, 2014, 11:01:46 AM
This is a poorly worded Post headline to announce this. By suggesting drivers can try the lanes for free, it suggests that I as a non-HOV qualifier can use the lanes, whereas the explanation further down clearly says I cannot during rush hour.
Between now and Dec 29 there is no change in how the lanes operate from today, only that there will be 3 lanes north of Dale City and that they now extend to Garrisonville...
Mapmikey
I don't like the way they keep saying "Express Lanes opening" because two of the three lanes are already "open" most of the time (main exceptions being when they're reversing the direction or when they're closed for construction) and because the existing reversible lanes have been called the "express lanes" by many people for a good 40 years now. It's not like the Beltway where they constructed four entirely new lanes that are "express" in the New York Subway sense of not giving access to every interchange. Rather, they're beginning a new system of operating the existing express facility and making a tweak to the traffic pattern by adding a third lane. It's one reason why in some of my comments here and elsewhere I've referred to when "HO/T operations begin" or to the "HO/T conversion." (I adopted froggie's preference for that slash a long time ago because I feel it emphasizes "high-occupancy OR toll" and because I prefer to say "H-O-T" as three letters to be analogous to "HOV"—you don't say it like "huv lanes.")
I was just in Arlington on business and I drove back via the I-395 HOV about half an hour ago as I type this. The overhead E-ZPass Express VMS units were switched on and were displaying alternating messages. The first sign, going up the hill past Landmark Mall, switched between "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN DEC 14" and "TOLLING BEGINS DEC 29." The next sign, just before the Duke Street overpass, switched between "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN DEC 14" and "EZPASS REQUIRED STARTING DEC 29." The signs out in the general-purpose lanes were operating the same as normal. I exited at the Beltway and noted the Express Lanes VMS there was not turned on. I thought they ought to have ALL of them emphasizing the date on which E-ZPass is required.
Also saw some new yellow diamond-shaped signs saying "VARIABLE SPEED ZONE AHEAD" with the purple "E-ZPass Express" sign on top. When I exited onto the Beltway there was a white rectangular sign saying "END VARIABLE SPEED ZONE."
My preferred terminology would be: "Ramps and new lanes opening on Sunday", and "Tolls begin December 29". Effectively, the new ramps will all open as extensions of the old HOV system, but the big switchover will happen on the 29th.
Supposidly, WTOP will be calling them the "E-ZPass Lanes" on traffic reports, to distinguish them from the old H-O-V lanes.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 10, 2014, 04:51:57 PM
....
Supposidly, WTOP will be calling them the "E-ZPass Lanes" on traffic reports, to distinguish them from the old H-O-V lanes.
That's the terminology Bob Marbourg has been using since November 2012 to refer to the Beltway's HO/T lanes. I haven't noticed the other traffic reporters using any terminology at all with regard to those lanes most of the time. As I've done in this thread, I sometimes refer to the "reversible lanes" or the "reversible carriageway" when referring to the system as a whole, but for obvious reasons that won't work well in a traffic report if you need to distinguish between the northern "HOV Lanes" portion and the southern "E-ZPass Express Lanes" portion.
I'm sure part of the reason Marbourg says "E-ZPass lanes" is that he's been around long enough that he refers to the existing reversible carriageway as the "express lanes." (I know one sign on I-395 still does too as of this afternoon, the advance southbound sign for the Seminary Road exit from the reversible lanes. It's attached to one of the on-ramps from King Street and it has an auxiliary sign reading "EXPRESS LANES ONLY" to indicate the sign is directed solely at people in the reversible lanes. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other signs that still say "express lanes." The ones near Landmark have been replaced with "E-ZPass EXPRESS" signs.)
You know, BTW, one benefit to this project is that the signs over the reversible lanes from Landmark on down to Aquia are much improved over the mish-mash of inconsistent signs that had been posted on that road in the past.
Quote from: froggie on December 10, 2014, 03:58:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:35:36 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 01:33:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 01:31:04 PM
you don't pronounce "HOV" as a word at all
I do.
If you say so. I've never heard anyone pronounce it as a word.
The 64 reversible lanes in Norfolk are routinely called "the huv". I've occasionally heard the term used for the 95/395 lanes as well, though mostly by military who are from or were stationed in California or Norfolk.
The Verizon Wireless GPS software (VZNavigator) calls them "huv lanes" - or at least it did the last time I used it (I no longer do).
WTOP Radio: 95 Express Lanes opening announced (http://www.wtop.com/654/3751518/95-Express-Lanes-will-open-this-month)
QuoteBefore a crowd of several hundred people Wednesday, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced the 95 Express Lanes will open this weekend, with toll collection beginning on Monday, Dec. 29.
QuoteThe governor called the project a game changer that will dramatically improve commutes for drivers in Northern Virginia and keep the region viable for economic growth and development.
QuoteMcAuliffe also renewed his call for the U.S. Department of Transportation to help fund high-speed rail between D.C., Fredericksburg, Richmond and Hampton Roads. He says such a project would augment the impact of the 95 Express Lanes, giving commuters options to quickly get between the nation's capital and Virginia's capital.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2014, 05:33:58 PM
You know, BTW, one benefit to this project is that the signs over the reversible lanes from Landmark on down to Aquia are much improved over the mish-mash of inconsistent signs that had been posted on that road in the past.
At least part of that mis-mash is due to the varied years at which the reversible lanes were completed.
As far south as (roughly) the present-day Va. 289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway), they date back to the early 1970's.
Then they were extended south to (roughly) the Occoquan River in the mid-1990's, and a few years later to their present terminus at Va. 234 near Dumfries.
I remember when they ended near Springfield in 1993, my first time in Virginia. Then to the Occoquan. Then to north of VA 234. Then to the present end in Dumfries around 1997 or so.
I always thought they would keep the momentum going and press southward, since they had even already constructed the bridge at Mine Road, which has just sat disused for well over 15 years now!
One thing I kind of wonder is why they are keeping the HOV rules in effect through the whole trial period. I can understand during the first week of the trial, since that is essentially a normal workweek. But the second week is essentially only two normal days, then Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and December 26 (which is a Federal holiday, per Obama's Executive Order). So I'm sure commuter traffic would be very light those days, to me it would make some sense to allow non HOV's to commute in the lanes toll-free for a couple of days, to practice for the real deal on the 29th when those people may choose to pay to commute in the new lanes regularly or semi-regularly. To me, it kind of waters down the "free trial" if some of the most important users (the ones who will be paying top dollar to ride in these lanes with fewer than 3 during peak hours) are totally excluded from the entire duration of the trial, even on some of the lightest traffic days of the year.
I also wonder how they will actually enforce HOV rules at the new entrances that don't have any permanent HOV signing (the pre-existing entrances mostly have some signs that will be taken down)? Presumably they would display HOV-3+ on the VMS portion of the Express Lane signs, but does that carry the same legal weight as a permanent white regulatory sign? I could see anyone who uses a new entrance point and gets an HOV ticket getting it thrown out in court, given that there are no permanent signs, and the only signs there are express lane signs, and the Express Lanes don't normally have the ability to restrict to HOV-3 Only (if the lanes are congested, they raise the price).
Quote from: mtantillo on December 11, 2014, 07:34:59 PM
One thing I kind of wonder is why they are keeping the HOV rules in effect through the whole trial period. I can understand during the first week of the trial, since that is essentially a normal workweek. But the second week is essentially only two normal days, then Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and December 26 (which is a Federal holiday, per Obama's Executive Order). So I'm sure commuter traffic would be very light those days, to me it would make some sense to allow non HOV's to commute in the lanes toll-free for a couple of days, to practice for the real deal on the 29th when those people may choose to pay to commute in the new lanes regularly or semi-regularly. To me, it kind of waters down the "free trial" if some of the most important users (the ones who will be paying top dollar to ride in these lanes with fewer than 3 during peak hours) are totally excluded from the entire duration of the trial, even on some of the lightest traffic days of the year.
I think that is up to Transurban, once they take control of the reversible roadway.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 11, 2014, 07:34:59 PM
I also wonder how they will actually enforce HOV rules at the new entrances that don't have any permanent HOV signing (the pre-existing entrances mostly have some signs that will be taken down)? Presumably they would display HOV-3+ on the VMS portion of the Express Lane signs, but does that carry the same legal weight as a permanent white regulatory sign? I could see anyone who uses a new entrance point and gets an HOV ticket getting it thrown out in court, given that there are no permanent signs, and the only signs there are express lane signs, and the Express Lanes don't normally have the ability to restrict to HOV-3 Only (if the lanes are congested, they raise the price).
I assume they will not enforce the HOV restrictions at the egress and access points any longer - all enforcement will be at the gantries, and directed at those that have an E-ZPass Flex transponder in the HOV position without the required three people in the vehicle.
I think Mike's point was how they'll enforce HOV between now and December 29 at the new access points that don't have the existing HOV signage. I suppose they could put out portable VMS trailers. There aren't that many new access points in the morning, FWIW–I think just the lanes' southern end–but the afternoon has three new ones I can think of off the top of my head (new ramp in Newington from Alban Road/Boudinot Drive, new southbound slip ramp entry in the middle of Exit 161, new southbound slip ramp entry near Dale Boulevard).
Of course, there won't be any HOV restrictions in Virginia on Christmas Day per the usual practice, so that day doesn't matter. I don't know whether they will also waive it on Boxing Day since the feds have the day off. They won't waive it on Christmas Eve. So you have eight business days when it's a potential issue, and three of those (December 22 to 24) will see fairly light traffic.
Edited to add: Regarding access points, I believe the fourth new access point, that being the new afternoon-only ramp from the Fort Belvoir Proving Ground that will run into the Newington flyover, isn't ready to open yet. I need to go to Lorton at some point, so if I take i-95 (questionable on a Friday afternoon) I'll try to keep my eyes peeled.
Wouldn't the purpose of a trial period to be let everyone use it? If you only restrict it to HOV traffic, then it's not a trial; it's status quo.
For SOVs, the trial would be to see if they can get to/from where they need to go via those lanes. They would want to encourage their use so when the trial is over, the SOVs...or in this case, the revenue generating vehicles, will continue to use those lanes.
Sure, you run into the possibility of jamming the lanes with SOVs. But the nice thing about the timing of this trial period is the fact that work traffic falls during this time of year (while shopping traffic increases), so overall there's fewer commuters on the highway.
I don't believe they view this as a "trial period."
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 07:37:00 AM
I think Mike's point was how they'll enforce HOV between now and December 29 at the new access points that don't have the existing HOV signage. I suppose they could put out portable VMS trailers. There aren't that many new access points in the morning, FWIW—I think just the lanes' southern end—but the afternoon has three new ones I can think of off the top of my head (new ramp in Newington from Alban Road/Boudinot Drive, new southbound slip ramp entry in the middle of Exit 161, new southbound slip ramp entry near Dale Boulevard).
Of course, there won't be any HOV restrictions in Virginia on Christmas Day per the usual practice, so that day doesn't matter. I don't know whether they will also waive it on Boxing Day since the feds have the day off. They won't waive it on Christmas Eve. So you have eight business days when it's a potential issue, and three of those (December 22 to 24) will see fairly light traffic.
Edited to add: Regarding access points, I believe the fourth new access point, that being the new afternoon-only ramp from the Fort Belvoir Proving Ground that will run into the Newington flyover, isn't ready to open yet. I need to go to Lorton at some point, so if I take i-95 (questionable on a Friday afternoon) I'll try to keep my eyes peeled.
Yes, you understood my point...it was how to enforce HOV during the Dec 14 - 29 period. I'm not sure that a digital message board alone, without a static white regulatory sign, can be legally enforced.
I wonder, will traffic be able to exit Fort Belvoir Proving Ground via that new ramp, and then "turn left" to get onto I-95 north? Essentially using the new access point but never actually entering the Express Lanes.
I also wonder, is there any way for the general public to use this ramp or does it literally begin within the restricted area of the military base?
Quote from: mtantillo on December 12, 2014, 11:18:09 AM
....
I wonder, will traffic be able to exit Fort Belvoir Proving Ground via that new ramp, and then "turn left" to get onto I-95 north? Essentially using the new access point but never actually entering the Express Lanes.
I also wonder, is there any way for the general public to use this ramp or does it literally begin within the restricted area of the military base?
The answer to the first question is "yes." The ramp is to be open only during the hours when the Express Lanes are pointed southbound. Traffic using the ramp will be allowed to turn left into the northbound general-purpose lanes or right into the southbound Express Lanes. The ramp will
not be open when the Express Lanes are pointed northbound for two reasons: (1) risk of people turning right and driving the wrong way on the Interstate; (2) probably more important in my view, traffic will be coming off the Express Lanes via that flyover at high speed and it'd be very unsafe to have slow-moving traffic entering the ramp there. That's also why the new ramp will never act as an exit FROM the Express Lanes TO the Proving Ground–people would have to slow down far too much going up the flyover in order to make the left turn onto the new ramp.
Regarding your other question, the ramp will begin at Heller Road; the exact location can be seen in the Google satellite view linked below (note the stub at the left side). I don't know whether the public can access Heller Road because I've never tried, never had any reason to bother and I didn't want to risk getting in some kind of trouble driving somewhere I wasn't supposed to (especially if I had my dashcam running). I have no idea where the security points are, though the satellite view suggests that road might be accessible. Now you've got me curious. I might have to drive over that way to see what I can see when I head to Lorton in about half an hour or so.
(This map my brother's company has online suggests Heller Road is accessible to the public (http://www.afcea.org/events/fallintel/12/NCEVisitorDirections.pdf), based on where it shows the security gates as being, but who knows. I know it is located within Fort Belvoir property, but that alone isn't determinative.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7503541,-77.1871033,418m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 08:56:26 AM
I don't believe they view this as a "trial period."
Whoops...actually reading *all* of the article brought that to light! :-)
Quick update: Heller Road is indeed accessible to the public. So is Barta Road across the Proving Grounds–potentially a shortcut to the far side of the Fullerton Road area. I doubt most of the public will have any clue they can access the new ramp nor even how to do so.
I'll post a few pictures later today.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 12:47:19 PM
Quick update: Heller Road is indeed accessible to the public. So is Barta Road across the Proving Grounds–potentially a shortcut to the far side of the Fullerton Road area. I doubt most of the public will have any clue they can access the new ramp nor even how to do so.
I'll post a few pictures later today.
Definitely part of the Fort Belvoir North Area.
I have been there on official business (and not otherwise driven through there), but as best as I can tell, both Heller Road and Barta Road are indeed open to the public.
I'm back. As I said before (posting from my phone), Heller Road and Barta Road are both open to the public. There's almost no reason for a member of the public ever to use Heller except to access the ramp to the I-95 Express Lanes, but it's also easy to access them from the new entry/exit ramp in Newington that connects to the intersection of Alban Road and Boudinot Drive. There's very little reason why someone not coming from the Fort Belvoir facility would want to use the Heller Road access point. Also, aside from that ramp, the only way out of there for a member of the public is via Barta Road–at its southern end closer to Newington, Heller essentially dead-ends into a driveway for the intelligence facility located there. If you take the ramp to Heller from the Fairfax County Parkway or I-95 and you aren't an authorized vehicle, you essentially have to turn right and follow it towards Barta. (There are cameras all over the place and various pop-up barriers....I couldn't help but feel an irrational fear that they'd see me cutting a U-turn near the restricted area and pop up a barrier, but of course they didn't. I WAS tailed by a cop for a short distance on Barta Road, and when I saw him coming I pulled my dashcam off the windshield, but he didn't give me any trouble.)
That HO/T ramp COULD be a useful ramp if you were coming from the east side of US-1 (Terminal Drive area, Cinder Bed Road, etc.) and you want to go south in the HO/T lanes. The alternative is to exit at Boudinot Drive and go straight through two lights. I don't know which would be faster. If you're in the Fullerton Road area, the ramp at Boudinot would be more logical. Same if you're on Backlick Road–depending on where you are, either the Boudinot ramp or the Franconia—Springfield Parkway ramp is probably easier. Other thing is, there are no signs anywhere to indicate to a member of the general public that there's an entrance to I-95 back there. The average local driver will never know the option exists.
It was also interesting to note the sign for the ramp only refers to going south in the Express Lanes. According to the VDOT megaprojects site, you will also be able to use the ramp to go north in the general-purpose lanes.
Turning onto Heller from Barta was slightly disconcerting because they have some very sturdy 8'2" barriers to stop truck traffic. While I knew my car would easily clear that, it was still weird driving under it.
Going west on Barta beyond Heller is strange and uninviting because the road is two lanes each way but they have a security barrier consisting of a Jersey wall zig-zagging between the lanes–I guess you could say you go through some tight esses that appear designed to slow you down enough to allow their guards to pop up a barrier in front of you if they are suspicious of you.
I'm going to edit this to add some video and some other pictures of things I found interesting once I've compiled the video and created the pictures from screen captures.
Edited to add:
–Forgot to include the map link I meant to include. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7494543,-77.1824766,15z
–First picture is on the southbound Fairfax County Parkway. Sorry about the graininess. It's a sign for the HO/T lanes. I found it interesting because of the yellow banner at the bottom: "USE BOUDINOT DR" with an arrow indicating to exit to the right.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBoudinotDriveHOTsign_zpse88058d2.png&hash=208648536fec59ddcd3f506907d08f121934a157)
–Second picture is on the existing ramp from the southbound Parkway to southbound I-95. To the right is the new ramp connecting the HO/T lanes and Alban Road/Boudinot Drive. You may recall there used to be access to southbound I-95's general-purpose lanes at that intersection. What I found interesting was to see a toll gantry placed over an exit/entrance ramp. I believe this is the only place on either set of Northern Virginia HO/T lanes that I've seen a toll gantry over a ramp. There's a gantry out in the lanes themselves next to this ramp. I'm a bit curious as to why they configured it this way instead of just having two gantries out in the lanes themselves, but I suspect it might have something to do with there being a northbound slip ramp located just to the south of the ramp–might that have been too many gantries in too short an area or something?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBoudinotDriveHOTramptollgantry_zpsf85b84fb.png&hash=4d4f55e50a6e511d662a27c1327b9f75c79a25a9)
Video to come in a second edit.Video of Heller Road showing where the ramp is and the dead-end and part of Barta Road is embedded below. There's a noticeable splice when the camera reset the clip at precisely the wrong time when I passed the HO/T lane ramp the first time. The intersection I reach after the splice is where the ramp comes off the Fairfax County Parkway and I-95. The ramp to the left at the beginning of the video is I-95's southbound Exit 166, marked for Backlick Road. You may or may not get an extended period of silence at the beginning–Billy Joel's "Pressure" was playing on the radio and it caused a copyright issue on YouTube, so I told their software to remove the song.
Hoo, thanks for sharing these.
Last time I was down on Barta Road, the work for that long flying ramp from Heller Road to the I-95 managed lanes southbound was just getting started, and the entrance point is exactly where I remember it being.
I forgot to mention, I did not get a look at the other end of the Heller Road ramp because I didn't take I-95 back north due to very heavy traffic that appeared not to be moving much. I was headed to Old Town, so I took Route 1 up to Mount Vernon Highway and then took that to the GW Parkway. Widening of Route 1 through Fort Belvoir is well underway, BTW, though the construction doesn't extend to the northern end of the base near Mount Vernon Highway where there's a controversy about the future of those stables located just southeast of the road.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 04:07:51 PM
Widening of Route 1 through Fort Belvoir is well underway
Widening? Are they 6-laning US 1 through that area?
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 12, 2014, 04:22:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 04:07:51 PM
Widening of Route 1 through Fort Belvoir is well underway
Widening? Are they 6-laning US 1 through that area?
Yes, six thru lanes plus turn lanes where needed. They're also replacing the bridge over Accotink Creek. All the BRAC stuff plus the opening of the new hospital on the base put added pressure on them to get the widening underway.
Project website: http://rte1ftbelvoir.com/
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 04:48:46 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 12, 2014, 04:22:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 04:07:51 PM
Widening of Route 1 through Fort Belvoir is well underway
Widening? Are they 6-laning US 1 through that area?
Yes, six thru lanes plus turn lanes where needed. They're also replacing the bridge over Accotink Creek. All the BRAC stuff plus the opening of the new hospital on the base put added pressure on them to get the widening underway.
Have they torn down the railroad bridge over U.S. 1 yet?
Thanks for the insight, fellow hoo!
There is a "ramp gantry" at the Prince William Parkway exit. Remember that "gantry = enforcement point", so they may have felt it was a good location to run enforcement of the HOV rules.
I wonder if there will be a "ramp gantry" that will charge a small toll for the use of the new ramp from the Proving Grounds to I-95 north during PM rush hour?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2014, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 04:48:46 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 12, 2014, 04:22:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 04:07:51 PM
Widening of Route 1 through Fort Belvoir is well underway
Widening? Are they 6-laning US 1 through that area?
Yes, six thru lanes plus turn lanes where needed. They're also replacing the bridge over Accotink Creek. All the BRAC stuff plus the opening of the new hospital on the base put added pressure on them to get the widening underway.
Have they torn down the railroad bridge over U.S. 1 yet?
Yes. Video of the entire work zone is below (as I type this, YouTube is still processing it, so it may not play; I also might have to tell it to mute the audio again if it raises a copyright flag).
http://youtu.be/YmDZJZRPgoY
To get back to the topic of HO/T lanes, Dr. Gridlock just posted a blog entry saying the McAuliffe Administration intends to study HO/T lanes
on I-66 inside the Beltway. Arlington County will consider that about as welcome as a loud fart in church. I can't imagine they'd cooperate with this given their intransigence on I-395. Arlington views I-66 not being widened as more of a sacred cow than anything to do with I-395.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/12/12/virginia-to-study-hot-lanes-inside-the-beltway/
Quote from: mtantillo on December 12, 2014, 05:20:56 PM
Thanks for the insight, fellow hoo!
There is a "ramp gantry" at the Prince William Parkway exit. Remember that "gantry = enforcement point", so they may have felt it was a good location to run enforcement of the HOV rules.
I wonder if there will be a "ramp gantry" that will charge a small toll for the use of the new ramp from the Proving Grounds to I-95 north during PM rush hour?
That might actually work, but I am not aware that anyone considered it!
Clearly, there are no turning conflicts at the end of that long flyover where it joins the existing structure., and I think there is enough room for traffic to accelerate to merge in to I-95 northbound.
Only concern might be turning radius, as the turn would seem to be rather sharp.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 12, 2014, 05:20:56 PM
....
There is a "ramp gantry" at the Prince William Parkway exit. Remember that "gantry = enforcement point", so they may have felt it was a good location to run enforcement of the HOV rules.
I wonder if there will be a "ramp gantry" that will charge a small toll for the use of the new ramp from the Proving Grounds to I-95 north during PM rush hour?
Thanks for that info. I have not used that exit in a very long time because every time I've used the Prince William Parkway recently it's been early morning and the HOV lanes were going the other way.
I couldn't see any sign of a "ramp gantry" at the Heller Road ramp when I looked over as I was driving past. Doesn't mean there isn't one, of course.
Edited to add: I found something online that suggests Transurban did not build that ramp, which implies to me it probably won't be tolled for northbound traffic.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 05:30:33 PM
To get back to the topic of HO/T lanes, Dr. Gridlock just posted a blog entry saying the McAuliffe Administration intends to study HO/T lanes on I-66 inside the Beltway. Arlington County will consider that about as welcome as a loud fart in church. I can't imagine they'd cooperate with this given their intransigence on I-395. Arlington views I-66 not being widened as more of a sacred cow than anything to do with I-395.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/12/12/virginia-to-study-hot-lanes-inside-the-beltway/
Thanks for sharing.
I will not predict how this might turn out, but it is perhaps (IMO) the best place (above all) in Northern Virginia to use pricing to manage traffic.
A few issues (among many) that will spawn controversy:
(1) This would (
presumably) force a return to HOV-3 in order to get a free trip on I-66. At least HOV-3 would be consistent with managed lanes on I-95 and I-495 in Virginia.
(2) What about the "Dulles Exemption?" Allows traffic headed eastbound morning from the Dulles Access Road (only) to any point along I-66 between Exits 68 (Westmoreland Street) and the Rosslyn Tunnel (just before (Exit 75 (Va. 110)) to disregard HOV restrictions. Westbound traffic entering I-66 at any point between Va. 110 and Washington Boulevard (opposite Exit 75) and headed to the Dulles Access Road (only) also enjoys HOV exemption in the afternoon.
I suppose if there is agreement to retain that exemption, any vehicle wanting it might be required to have any E-Z Pass transponder, and then have gantries near the far eastern end of the Dulles Access Road to match and zero-out toll transactions on I-66.
(3) What about traffic on the Dulles Connector Road that is not headed to the Dulles Access Road? Should such trips be tolled above and beyond the I-66 tolls?
(4) Currently the off-peak-flow directions (westbound in A.M., eastbound in P.M.) inside the Beltway have no HOV restriction at all, but are often severely congested. A lot of the drivers stuck in that congestion are Arlington County residents.
(5) Presumably a properly priced I-66 will be able to carry more traffic than the (frequently congested) I-66 there today. That could be the source of much disagreement.
(6) There might be a legal issue with mandating that every driver have an E-ZPass transponder here, because I-66 has always been part of the Interstate system.
Somewhere...and I cannot for the life of me remember where, but in some Federal legislation, there is a requirement that agencies provide some form of method for those without an ETC transponder to access the "corridor". So HOT lanes don't necessarily count, since the regular lanes are what someone without a transponder could use. The only non-HOT type system I know of where a transponder (or account) is mandatory is in Houston on the Westpark tollway, and Sam Houston Tollway, but Harris County says the frontage roads maintain access for all.
But I could definitely see FHWA balking at the idea of any transponder requirement on I-66 if there are no un-tolled lanes. Transurban has been reluctant to do video tolling, and has a transponder requirement, but it seems like any tolling of I-66 inside the Beltway would not necessarily be Transurban or another PPTA participant, but more VDOT or a similar arrangement to the Elizabeth River Crossings in Norfolk, which do utilize video tolls on a corridor with no "free" lanes. I get the idea it would not be PPTA because a private firm like Transurban wants to keep the excess toll money, whereas Stewie Schwartz's comment in the article referenced all the money going to transit in the corridor (presumably WMATA, Loudoun County, PRTC).
With no transponder requirement, they could have a gantry on the Dulles Access Road to "zero out" toll charges for anyone going to the airport via video or transponder.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 12, 2014, 06:22:30 PM
The only non-HOT type system I know of where a transponder (or account) is mandatory is in Houston on the Westpark tollway, and Sam Houston Tollway, but Harris County says the frontage roads maintain access for all.
There was the Wabash Memorial Bridge, but it's now toll-free.
Quote from: NE2 on December 12, 2014, 06:30:09 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 12, 2014, 06:22:30 PM
The only non-HOT type system I know of where a transponder (or account) is mandatory is in Houston on the Westpark tollway, and Sam Houston Tollway, but Harris County says the frontage roads maintain access for all.
There was the Wabash Memorial Bridge, but it's now toll-free.
And interestingly enough....one of the reasons the Wabash Memorial Bridge had a transponder requirement was because..... "Wabash Pass" used Harris County's EZ-Tag customer service center to do all of their processing. The Wabash Pass and EZ-Tag service centers were at the same address in Houston. So naturally the customer service people used the same rules.
One of the reasons Harris County refuses to do video tolling is that they do not have the authority under state law to issue lines of credit, and by letting someone use a toll road without immediately paying, and invoicing them later, it is equivalent to issuing a line of credit (or so they say). For some strange reason, every single other toll agency that has done AET has come to a different conclusion, but that is of no interest to them apparently.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 12, 2014, 06:22:30 PM
Somewhere...and I cannot for the life of me remember where, but in some Federal legislation, there is a requirement that agencies provide some form of method for those without an ETC transponder to access the "corridor". So HOT lanes don't necessarily count, since the regular lanes are what someone without a transponder could use. The only non-HOT type system I know of where a transponder (or account) is mandatory is in Houston on the Westpark tollway, and Sam Houston Tollway, but Harris County says the frontage roads maintain access for all.
Okay, here is the relevant piece of legislation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/950.5 (see section B)
I think this applies to pretty much everything except HOT lanes (which are under a separate section of the legislation), including all of the value pricing projects, tolling to fund reconstruction, tolling new added capacity (for all vehicles). This could very well explain why the I-95 Express Lanes in Maryland (tolled for all, authorized under the "added capacity can be tolled if the same number of free lanes is maintained" provisions) allow video tolls, but the I-95 and I-495 Express Lanes in Virginia (tolled for non-HOV's, authorized under HOV/HOT/congestion management provisions) to not allow those without E-ZPass to use.
I note they didn't necessarily say they'd explore a full conversion of all lanes. I pictured a single HO/T lane on the left when I read it.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 07:01:17 PM
I note they didn't necessarily say they'd explore a full conversion of all lanes. I pictured a single HO/T lane on the left when I read it.
That would be
tough to implement, and make it difficult (impossible?) to pass. What about the exits?
The late Dr. John Nestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor) would have had a lot of fun with that sort of configuration.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 12, 2014, 06:22:30 PM
article referenced all the money going to transit in the corridor (presumably WMATA, Loudoun County, PRTC).
This is an instance where I have no problem with
some toll revenue going to cross-subsidize transit operations (
in the same or near the same corridor).
But pay the bondholders (if there are any), maintain and police the road - first. No Pennsylvania Act 44-type deal, where the toll road is asked to borrow money to fork over to transit subsidies.
And before a money pipeline is opened to transit, the transit operators should be relying on the private sector to maintain and drive the buses and other transit vehicles. PRTC, Fairfax Connector, Loudoun Commuter Express and ART do.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 11, 2014, 07:34:59 PM
One thing I kind of wonder is why they are keeping the HOV rules in effect through the whole trial period. I can understand during the first week of the trial, since that is essentially a normal workweek. But the second week is essentially only two normal days, then Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and December 26 (which is a Federal holiday, per Obama's Executive Order). So I'm sure commuter traffic would be very light those days, to me it would make some sense to allow non HOV's to commute in the lanes toll-free for a couple of days, to practice for the real deal on the 29th when those people may choose to pay to commute in the new lanes regularly or semi-regularly. To me, it kind of waters down the "free trial" if some of the most important users (the ones who will be paying top dollar to ride in these lanes with fewer than 3 during peak hours) are totally excluded from the entire duration of the trial, even on some of the lightest traffic days of the year.
I also wonder how they will actually enforce HOV rules at the new entrances that don't have any permanent HOV signing (the pre-existing entrances mostly have some signs that will be taken down)? Presumably they would display HOV-3+ on the VMS portion of the Express Lane signs, but does that carry the same legal weight as a permanent white regulatory sign? I could see anyone who uses a new entrance point and gets an HOV ticket getting it thrown out in court, given that there are no permanent signs, and the only signs there are express lane signs, and the Express Lanes don't normally have the ability to restrict to HOV-3 Only (if the lanes are congested, they raise the price).
From the Transurban 95 Express Lanes (http://www.95expresslanes.com/) Web site (
emphasis added):
QuoteRoadway improvements have been completed early, so we're opening new ramps and lanes on I-95 on December 14 to allow you to benefit from the additional capacity during the holiday season. Standard HOV rules will continue to be in effect during rush hour until tolling begins on December 29, with the exception of holidays. Outside HOV hours, anyone can try the new Lanes for free.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2014, 07:56:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 07:01:17 PM
I note they didn't necessarily say they'd explore a full conversion of all lanes. I pictured a single HO/T lane on the left when I read it.
That would be tough to implement, and make it difficult (impossible?) to pass. What about the exits?
The late Dr. John Nestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor) would have had a lot of fun with that sort of configuration.
I meant one additional lane operated as HO/T, not conversion of an existing one.
Quote from: NE2 on December 12, 2014, 06:30:09 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 12, 2014, 06:22:30 PM
The only non-HOT type system I know of where a transponder (or account) is mandatory is in Houston on the Westpark tollway, and Sam Houston Tollway, but Harris County says the frontage roads maintain access for all.
There was the Wabash Memorial Bridge, but it's now toll-free.
Good. IMO the idea of a low-traffic rural bridge in the middle of nowhere requiring a transponder that could only be used on said bridge and was interoperable with nothing, even though Indiana is an E-ZPass member, was one of the stupidest ideas in the history of ideas. I wonder of the requirement to be interoperable by 2016 was a factor in the decision to remove tolls.
QuoteI meant one additional lane operated as HO/T, not conversion of an existing one.
That's definitely not going to happen. I was under the distinct impression from the recent study that the idea to convert 66 to HO/T would be conversion of all existing lanes but not add any new lanes.
There's a minimally more detailed article in today's paper. Of course, the photo is of an interchange outside the Beltway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/officials-to-consider-road-widening-hot-lanes-through-arlington-portion-of-i-66/2014/12/12/2bf9a97e-824a-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2014, 07:32:10 AM
QuoteI meant one additional lane operated as HO/T, not conversion of an existing one.
That's definitely not going to happen. I was under the distinct impression from the recent study that the idea to convert 66 to HO/T would be conversion of all existing lanes but not add any new lanes.
Arlington County's elected officials were confident that they would stop all of I-66 between I-495 and Rosslyn in the planning process or in court.
They didn't. What the Commonwealth wants, the Commonwealth usually gets. In this case a scaled-down version of what VDH originally wanted, but still a continuous freeway to close that gap, which Arlington had vowed to stop.
Having said that, there is not really much widening that is warranted (IMO) - 3.8 miles according to Google Maps, and much of it (especially on the westbound side) has already been widened.
I would like to see continuous three lanes all the way from the Dulles Connector Road's half interchange, Exit 67 (westbound only) to the Exit 71 for Va. 120/Va. 237 (North Glebe Road) (eastbound side). Much of the added lane work is already in place (in particular on the westbound side between Exit 71 to Exit 69 (Sycamore Street).
Dr. Gridlock in the Washington Post: 95 Express Lanes set to open Sunday evening (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/12/14/95-express-lanes-set-to-open-sunday-evening/)
QuoteStarting Sunday evening, the 95 Express Lanes will open in Northern Virginia, but the project isn't complete. Here's what I-95/395 drivers need to know for the next two weeks.
QuoteNo tolls at first. All the new lanes and ramps are opening along the system's 29 miles between Garrisonville Road in Stafford County and the Edsall Road area just inside the Capital Beltway. They will be free for all drivers until Dec. 29. But HOV3 rules will be in effect at peak periods all along the express lanes route, even in the nine-mile section to the south that consists of completely new lanes.
QuoteAt off-peak hours and on weekends, the lanes will be open to all drivers during the two-week transition to regular operations.
I drove my wife to work this morning because she had several bags of stuff to donate to an office clothing drive. Didn't enter I-395 until the King Street exit on the way in. On the way back out of the city I took it all the way to the Beltway. Express lanes were pointed inbound, of course, and it was still during HOV hours. HOV volume appeared light. Saw one vehicle using the new exit flyover at Turkeycock. I did get a look at the lane control signals and the variable speed limit signs, the latter via my mirrors. The lane control signals appear to be more brightly-lit than the ones over the I-66 shoulder lane. Should be easier to see in sun glare and the like. The variable speed limit signs are the style that used to be in use on the Beltway from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge during the construction a few years ago and currently in use on US-27 west of Pembroke Pines, Florida–the style that looks like a black number on a white background, rather than the illuminated yellow number on a black background like on I-495 in Delaware. The style they're using looks more like a conventional speed limit sign. To my eyes, the Delaware style signs are easier to see because the numbers seem brighter.
WTOP said there were traffic snarls at the lanes' southern end near Aquia but didn't say what the problem was. I didn't hear any mention of accidents, so I assume part of the issue may be with people entering from Route 610 (there is a very busy slug lot at that interchange) and trying to cut directly across to the express lanes. The next entrance is the lanes' old southern terminus near Route 234, nine miles to the north, so there's certainly some incentive to try to cut across. Too bad it couldn't have been constructed as a right-side exit onto a flyover the way the southbound terminus is set up.
At 5:05 this morning 95 NB was backed up approaching the Aquia Interchange but this backup did not stay solid to the entrance ramp for the Express Lanes. This interchange backs up fairly regularly because of the huge number of people using the clover from EB SR 610 to NB 95.
As I have stated before I also wonder why no flyover for the entrance in Aquia.
My expectation for the afternoon is that since eligibility for the lanes hasn't changed yet, the normal Woodbridge backup where the mainline drops from 4 to 3 lanes will be the same. I expect the backup in Dumfries from the old HOV end will move to Aquia, but I think it will be worse because instead of a simple merge it will be a weave with a substantial number of people on mainline 95 wanting to exit at Aquia. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Personally after 12/29 I will have to figure out if it is better for me to use the toll lane all the way to the end or to get off at the new Triangle flyover instead...
Mapmikey
I think we might see some level of slowdown or lane-changing at the Prince William Parkway in the afternoons because the right lane of three will now become exit-only there. In the past, the reversible carriageway was two lanes and there was a conventional deceleration lane at that exit. I suspect the exit-only aspect will catch some people by surprise. It SHOULDN'T be a big deal, but you know how people around here overreact to such things....
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2014, 10:20:53 AM
I think we might see some level of slowdown or lane-changing at the Prince William Parkway in the afternoons because the right lane of three will now become exit-only there. In the past, the reversible carriageway was two lanes and there was a conventional deceleration lane at that exit. I suspect the exit-only aspect will catch some people by surprise. It SHOULDN'T be a big deal, but you know how people around here overreact to such things....
Yesterday when I rode the lanes northbound, anyone entering at Prince William Parkway tried to immediately "merge" over to the right, even though they don't have to anymore.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2014, 10:20:53 AM
I think we might see some level of slowdown or lane-changing at the Prince William Parkway in the afternoons because the right lane of three will now become exit-only there. In the past, the reversible carriageway was two lanes and there was a conventional deceleration lane at that exit. I suspect the exit-only aspect will catch some people by surprise. It SHOULDN'T be a big deal, but you know how people around here overreact to such things....
Yesterday when I rode the lanes northbound, anyone entering at Prince William Parkway tried to immediately "merge" over to the right, even though they don't have to anymore.
As long as they do so safely, I consider that commendable because it means they're not hogging the left lane.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2014, 11:56:48 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2014, 10:20:53 AM
I think we might see some level of slowdown or lane-changing at the Prince William Parkway in the afternoons because the right lane of three will now become exit-only there. In the past, the reversible carriageway was two lanes and there was a conventional deceleration lane at that exit. I suspect the exit-only aspect will catch some people by surprise. It SHOULDN'T be a big deal, but you know how people around here overreact to such things....
Yesterday when I rode the lanes northbound, anyone entering at Prince William Parkway tried to immediately "merge" over to the right, even though they don't have to anymore.
As long as they do so safely, I consider that commendable because it means they're not hogging the left lane.
The worst Nestoring I ever observed in the I-95/I-395 restricted lanes was back in the days of the old District of Columbia Lorton Reformatory (which came to an end after the Republican Party took over Congress in the 1994 elections - D.C. felons are now incarcerated in the federal Bureau of Prisons).
The D.C. Department of Corrections had a fleet of old prison buses that would shuttle felons between the prison site in Lorton and (presumably) their day in court in Washington. Headed south from D.C. in the afternoons, the DCDC buses would invariably drive relatively slowly in the left lane of the restricted roadway (they were, after all, providing a form of mass transportation), causing a long queue of vehicles to form behind the bus or buses.
I continue to shake my head at some of the silly questions people ask. Dr. Gridlock had an online Q-and-A session at noon today (http://live.washingtonpost.com/gridlock1215.html) and someone posted the following question. I mean, come on, use your own two eyes! Anyone who's been on I-95 at any point in recent years should have been able to tell it wouldn't be two sets of lanes like on the Beltway.
QuoteI thought I remember at one point reading that the project that opened last night was going to be a permanent set of HOT lanes operating in both directions (similar to beltway HOT lanes)–up until Edsall Road. All that I've read now about Edsall road is that people in the HOT lanes may cause a backup because they have to get off if they're not HOV (because that's the transition). Is my original assumption–that from Stafford to Edsall there would be 24/7 2-way HOT lanes–wrong? Or is there so little worry about it that there's just nothing written (that I've seen at least)?
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2014, 01:47:05 PM
I continue to shake my head at some of the silly questions people ask. Dr. Gridlock had an online Q-and-A session at noon today (http://live.washingtonpost.com/gridlock1215.html) and someone posted the following question. I mean, come on, use your own two eyes! Anyone who's been on I-95 at any point in recent years should have been able to tell it wouldn't be two sets of lanes like on the Beltway.
QuoteI thought I remember at one point reading that the project that opened last night was going to be a permanent set of HOT lanes operating in both directions (similar to beltway HOT lanes)—up until Edsall Road. All that I've read now about Edsall road is that people in the HOT lanes may cause a backup because they have to get off if they're not HOV (because that's the transition). Is my original assumption—that from Stafford to Edsall there would be 24/7 2-way HOT lanes—wrong? Or is there so little worry about it that there's just nothing written (that I've seen at least)?
You beat me to it...I was just about to post that gem of a quote.
No matter how much public outreach you do, there is no shortage of clueless people out there...
Between the people that have no clue, the people who don't understand a darn thing about how congestion pricing and basic supply/demand works, and the people who think that 5 lanes of stopped traffic is better than 3 lanes of stopped traffic and 2 lanes managed to operate at speed...
Or this...
QuoteQ: I-95 Express Lanes
Maybe I missed the description (or am just confused) but will the new I-95 express lanes that just opened up be open to both Northbound AND Southbound traffic at the same time? Or will they function like the old HOV lanes and be Northbound in morning rush hour & Southbound in evening rush hour?
A: Robert Thomson
The 95 Express Lanes are the most complicated highway system in the D.C. region and will take a while to get used to.
They express lanes are reversible and will follow the same schedule as the HOV3 lanes did. So this is different from the Beltway express lanes. That project added four new lanes, so you have two in each direction on the 495 Express Lanes.
Or This Shoutout...
Quote
Q: Maryland HOT lanes
I don't drive I-95 north of Baltimore very often but last week I was able to try out their new HOT lanes for free. I entered the lanes at the northern-most point and exited at 895. I was very impressed with the limited on/off ramps (keeps confusion to minimum) and also the signage was very clear. In both regards, the lanes were easier to use than the Beltway's current HOT lanes. Will the per-mile pricing rates be similar all over I-95?
A: Robert Thomson
Maryland doesn't have any HOT lanes. I mention this just to illustrate how complex these new tolling systems can be, and why it takes us time to learn how to use them.
HOT stands for high-occupancy toll. (Even that term is confusing. I like the way frequent blog commenter 1995hoo writes it: HO/T, for high-occupany/toll. You either ride free as a high-occupancy carpooler, or you pay a toll.)
Maryland has all-electronic tolling on the Intercounty Connector and on the brand new I-95 Express Toll Lanes that the commenter drove last week. But it doesn't offer free rides to carpoolers.
Maryland also doesn't use "dynamic pricing" in setting the toll rates. Maryland has a variable tolling system, where the toll you pay is set to the time of day you drive.
In the Virginia express lanes, there's no upper limit on the toll. It varies with the level of traffic and the distance you drive.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 01:52:12 PM
Between the people that have no clue, the people who don't understand a darn thing about how congestion pricing and basic supply/demand works, and the people who think that 5 lanes of stopped traffic is better than 3 lanes of stopped traffic and 2 lanes managed to operate at speed...
When EZ Pass was newer, I remember seeing complaints from people that thought too many lanes were dedicated to EZ Pass, and that the length of the EZ Pass line queue should be the same as the length of the cash paying line queue.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2014, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 01:52:12 PM
Between the people that have no clue, the people who don't understand a darn thing about how congestion pricing and basic supply/demand works, and the people who think that 5 lanes of stopped traffic is better than 3 lanes of stopped traffic and 2 lanes managed to operate at speed...
When EZ Pass was newer, I remember seeing complaints from people that thought too many lanes were dedicated to EZ Pass, and that the length of the EZ Pass line queue should be the same as the length of the cash paying line queue.
As Dr. Gridlock has said–and I think he's right–people are so conditioned to seeing congested roads, they automatically assume that if anything is moving anywhere close to normal speed it must mean it's underutilized.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2014, 02:07:49 PM
....
Or This Shoutout...
Quote
Q: Maryland HOT lanes
I don't drive I-95 north of Baltimore very often but last week I was able to try out their new HOT lanes for free. I entered the lanes at the northern-most point and exited at 895. I was very impressed with the limited on/off ramps (keeps confusion to minimum) and also the signage was very clear. In both regards, the lanes were easier to use than the Beltway's current HOT lanes. Will the per-mile pricing rates be similar all over I-95?
A: Robert Thomson
Maryland doesn't have any HOT lanes. I mention this just to illustrate how complex these new tolling systems can be, and why it takes us time to learn how to use them.
HOT stands for high-occupancy toll. (Even that term is confusing. I like the way frequent blog commenter 1995hoo writes it: HO/T, for high-occupany/toll. You either ride free as a high-occupancy carpooler, or you pay a toll.)
....
Heh. I saw that when he posted it. The credit for that abbreviation really belongs to froggie since I picked it up after seeing he'd written it that way and thinking it was a useful way to denote the "OR" aspect of how such lanes operate.
Since there were 5 separate problems with I-95 mainline this afternoon (4 definitely were not related to Express Lanes) I cannot give a full appraisal of the conditions.
I can say that there did not appear to be any issues where the 3rd lane drops at VA 294 - looked to be traveling near the speed limit there.
I did notice that the slowdown on the lanes began 3/4 of a mile from the end. It looks like the flyover curves are sharp enough (30 mph posted) that this may be the cause of Express Lane slowdown and not the weave onto I-95. There were no issues on mainline 95 at the new south end but one of the wrecks was close enoughto this location that it might have affected 95's true flow down there.
Mapmikey
I wanted to try the SB configuration tonight, but Transurban is already deviating from their published schedule...lanes closed before 9PM. Tomorrow I guess!
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 11:04:11 PM
I wanted to try the SB configuration tonight, but Transurban is already deviating from their published schedule...lanes closed before 9PM. Tomorrow I guess!
I'm planning to use them southbound on Saturday. Don't want to drive an extra sixty miles this week just to explore the lanes, especially now that I woke up this morning to the news of the water main break downtown that's messing up the Metro such that I'm going to be driving my wife to work again. We may be using your suggestion of taking the Beltway HO/T lanes to I-66 because I have a hunch 12 Street being closed at E will back up I-395 as well, due both to congestion and to people using other routes to get around. (When there's a problem in that area, a lot of people bail to Memorial Bridge, but in our case, that's the most direct route, hence why I find another way entirely.)
Edited to add: For what it's worth, at 8:10 AM entering the Beltway lanes at their southern end it was $6.45 to I-66, $12.00 to the lanes' northern end. We were at I-66 within five minutes, so well worth the toll....unfortunately, it was one of those mornings where when one thing goes wrong, everything is slow. Still took an hour to get to the Watergate complex even with HOV on I-66. Apparently there was a wreck on the Roosevelt Bridge. :ded:
WAMU Radio: Transurban Takes Step Towards Profitability With 495 Express Lanes (http://wamu.org/news/14/12/15/transurban_takes_step_towards_profitability_with_495_express_lanes)
QuoteAfter losing $51 million in its first full year of operations in 2013, the 495 Express Lanes – 14 miles of E-ZPass-only toll and HOV-3 lanes along the Beltway in Northern Virginia – are collecting enough toll revenue to cover their operating expenses as 2014 comes to a close, said the chief executive of the highway's private sector operator, Australia-based Transurban.
QuoteWhile the express lanes' customer base is expanding, Transurban may not make a profit on its long-term investment for several more years, said Transurban CEO Scott Charlton, in an interview with WAMU 88.5.
Quote"We're at a point where we are more than covering our operating costs now and so we are happy with the investment that we restructured," said Charlton, referring to the $1.1 billion of debt raised to fund the cost of construction of the 495 Express Lanes. "We look at it as a long-term investment. It is not a short-term investment."
Quote"We expect to be covering our operating costs and paying our debt, but from an accounting profit, that is going to be years off. But we expect to make distributions to our shareholders around 2020 or late this decade," he added.
QuoteAs the opening of Transurban's other project in Northern Virginia – 95 Express Lanes between Fairfax and Stafford Counties – ignites a new discussion over how to defeat traffic congestion in the D.C. area, the company portends further revenue growth on the 495 corridor now that both toll roads form a 45-mile network of congestion-free lanes for drive-alone commuters, carpoolers, and buses.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 16, 2014, 07:23:24 AM
Edited to add: For what it's worth, at 8:10 AM entering the Beltway lanes at their southern end it was $6.45 to I-66, $12.00 to the lanes' northern end. We were at I-66 within five minutes, so well worth the toll....unfortunately, it was one of those mornings where when one thing goes wrong, everything is slow. Still took an hour to get to the Watergate complex even with HOV on I-66. Apparently there was a wreck on the Roosevelt Bridge. :ded:
I have heard of other people using the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes to get to I-66 eastbound.
A wreck on the T. Roosevelt is bad for several reasons: there is no viable alternative route from I-66 (the Memorial Bridge, not all that easy to get to from I-66, cannot handle the extra traffic, nor can the Key Bridge nor can the 14th Street Bridge); there is normally no D.C. Roadway Operations Patrol unit near the bridge; and because the bridge is in the District of Columbia, it means that the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia will respond to it at their leisure (though VDOT's Safety Service Patrol contractors will often get there first and provide some traffic control).
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 11:04:11 PM
I wanted to try the SB configuration tonight, but Transurban is already deviating from their published schedule...lanes closed before 9PM. Tomorrow I guess!
I get the impression that Transurban still has some stuff on their punch list to deal with, and maybe some stuff that is not quite finished.
Bob Marbourg was reporting some congestion on southbound I-95 near Va. 610 (Garrisonville Road) in Stafford County at the south end of the Transurban lanes. Be interesting if all that misery at Va. 234 in the afternoons just migrates south to Va. 610.
I believe Transurban also said they would be closing the gates earlier than usual during these first few weeks as they take over the gates' operation from VDOT. I assumed the rationale is simply an overabundance of caution.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 16, 2014, 01:11:39 PM
I believe Transurban also said they would be closing the gates earlier than usual during these first few weeks as they take over the gates' operation from VDOT. I assumed the rationale is simply an overabundance of caution.
If I read it correctly, Transurban will deal with checking the gates all the way up to Va. 27 (Washington Boulevard) and the Pentagon.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 11:04:11 PM
I wanted to try the SB configuration tonight, but Transurban is already deviating from their published schedule...lanes closed before 9PM. Tomorrow I guess!
I just read the lanes will be closed overnight tonight until 8:00 AM for further electronics work. Damn. I hope they finish and open them early because I wanted to use them. Oh well, I guess I can check it out in a few weeks, though I was looking forward to my free ride.
I suppose there isn't really a new scenery anyway, just the novelty of not encountering a construction mess on that segment of I-95.
Edited to add: BTW, I was in the northbound express lanes earlier this morning. Seems to me the signs for the northbound transition from HO/T to HOV are eminently clear. I might have added something to the effect of "NON-HOV MUST EXIT [listing appropriate hours]," whether on a separate sign or below other info. There used to be a notation like that at the southbound flyover ramp marked for the Fairfax County Parkway, the one just south of Route 644; I believe it said "NON-HOV'S MUST EXIT/3:30—6:00 PM WEEKDAYS" or something like that (I don't know why they included that erroneous apostrophe, but whatever).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FEndHOVsigns_zpsdb93f24c.png&hash=02d396493ef0f4e12ef1d684250213c50bdb8088)
^^ I would venture to guess the electronic signs would have that instruction on it during the necessary hours.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 19, 2014, 09:08:42 PM
^^ I would venture to guess the electronic signs would have that instruction on it during the necessary hours.
Good point. There is a VMS a short distance to the south that's still covered up, so maybe that will say it. As I said, I think those white signs seen above are very clear anyway, but sometimes you have to hit people over the head.
I pushed back our departure by an hour tomorrow under the guise of wanting more sleep (and I do hate getting up in the dark so it's somewhat legitimate as an excuse). Hopefully Transurban reopens the lanes on time.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2014, 06:47:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2014, 07:32:10 AM
QuoteI meant one additional lane operated as HO/T, not conversion of an existing one.
That's definitely not going to happen. I was under the distinct impression from the recent study that the idea to convert 66 to HO/T would be conversion of all existing lanes but not add any new lanes.
Arlington County's elected officials were confident that they would stop all of I-66 between I-495 and Rosslyn in the planning process or in court.
They didn't. What the Commonwealth wants, the Commonwealth usually gets. In this case a scaled-down version of what VDH originally wanted, but still a continuous freeway to close that gap, which Arlington had vowed to stop.
Having said that, there is not really much widening that is warranted (IMO) - 3.8 miles according to Google Maps, and much of it (especially on the westbound side) has already been widened.
I would like to see continuous three lanes all the way from the Dulles Connector Road's half interchange, Exit 67 (westbound only) to the Exit 71 for Va. 120/Va. 237 (North Glebe Road) (eastbound side). Much of the added lane work is already in place (in particular on the westbound side between Exit 71 to Exit 69 (Sycamore Street).
I wanted to get in on the conversation, but unfortunately was too busy to do it until now.
CPZ mentions the current Dulles exemption to the I-66 HOV rules. Essentially, Dulles Airport users get a toll free bypass on the Dulles Access Road and they also get a free pass from the HOV rules on I-66, all the way to DC.
Essentially, as far as I-66 is concerned, eastbound if a car is coming from the Dulles Access Road, they can drive on I-66, but any new car that joins I-66 from the Beltway, from I-66 west of the Beltway, from the Dulles Toll Road, or from any of the on-ramps in that area are committing a violation if they are not HOV.
I was wondering whether implementation of a similar rule might resolve some of the problems on the 95/395 express lanes at Edsall.
Northbound, anyone who is already in the express lanes (because they paid some kind of toll), are permitted to continue their journey all the way to the Pentagon (or DC), but any new vehicles coming in from an on-ramp in Arlington must be HOV-3 (no transponder necessary) during morning rush.
For southbound, I don't see the proposed implementation as being much of a problem. Only HOV will be on the roadway at first, and then they'll be joined by toll-paying customers at Edsall. Very few people will be forced to exit, since I imagine that any regular HOV driver on the corridor will get an EZ Pass Flex.
Quote from: mrsman on December 21, 2014, 12:11:30 PM
I was wondering whether implementation of a similar rule might resolve some of the problems on the 95/395 express lanes at Edsall.
Northbound, anyone who is already in the express lanes (because they paid some kind of toll), are permitted to continue their journey all the way to the Pentagon (or DC), but any new vehicles coming in from an on-ramp in Arlington must be HOV-3 (no transponder necessary) during morning rush.
Arlington County didn't want non-HOV traffic during rush hours on its part of the HOV lanes, with the limited exceptions already in place for traffic between the Pentagon and D.C. Its lawsuit, on that basis, is why the HO/T lanes end in Alexandria.
We drove down the I-95 express lanes yesterday en route to Florida. The right lane of the three-lane segment could be smoother. The ride in that lane was a bit bouncy due to rippled pavement. Otherwise, perfectly nice way to drive. Nothing too interesting to say about it.
Yesterday CPZ and I took a ride down the new lanes. The intent was to drive south, have late lunch in Fredericksburg and take our time, and then take the lanes back north after 4. Our plan was thwarted because they never did a midday reversal, the lanes were open southbound all day.
As a result of no realistic way to control congestion, there was a 25 minute backup to exit the lanes at the southern end (and barely any delay on the mainline). Then because the lanes never opened northbound, that direction was gridlock most of the way to the Beltway. So not exactly the best experience.
Your plan might have had better luck had you not tried it on a weekend that is right before a major holiday or is involved with a holiday.
I don't think it was that. Transurban has been shutting the lanes down overnight. So they likely got lazy and decided when they opened them SB on Saturday to just leave them SB all day, then close them for the overnight, and reopen them northbound on Sunday rather than do a midday flip. They have also been shutting the lanes down at about 8:30 PM on weeknight.
I really hope this isn't going to be a pattern. People have to know whether the lanes can be expected to be open at a given time based on the schedule. If they are going to deviate from that, they need to let people know through the media outlets and provide a reason (a reason other than "we didn't feel like doing a flip"). If they just haphazardly pick a schedule, then people can't really depend on the lanes.
Pretty sure they have to adhere to VDOT's scheduling. I'd guess they kept them open southbound all day to accommodate the out-of-town exodus for the holiday. VDOT's done that in the past...
Quote from: mtantillo on December 21, 2014, 03:26:55 PM
Yesterday CPZ and I took a ride down the new lanes. The intent was to drive south, have late lunch in Fredericksburg and take our time, and then take the lanes back north after 4. Our plan was thwarted because they never did a midday reversal, the lanes were open southbound all day.
I'm hoping that Transurban follows a Saturday schedule on Christmas Day so I can do what you tried to do. Since the lanes will need to be open southbound for the Christmas Eve evening rush, and probably northbound for the Boxing Day morning rush (for those commuting that day, rather than making returns at the malls -- but most Federal workers will have the day off), I expect Transurban will need to reverse the lanes at some point, and hope it'll do it midday on Christmas.
But I'm not betting the ranch on that. Hopefully Transurban will stick better to its schedules once it starts charging tolls.
Washington Post: Virginia HOT lanes aren't everything advocates hoped, or critics feared (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-hot-lanes-arent-everything-advocates-hoped-or-critics-feared/2014/12/21/7e1e276e-86d9-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html)
QuoteA decade and a half after the conversation began, the D.C. region's commuters still are trying to figure out the HOT lanes concept.
QuoteIt isn't just a matter of understanding how to navigate the high-occupancy toll lanes. They want to know where these things came from.
QuoteSome have dim memories of discussions involving the Virginia Department of Transportation. Others are just beginning to focus on this major change in highway travel because they heard the Interstate 95 Express Lanes go HOT on Dec. 29.
QuoteIn late November, one traveler asked me: "Is there any chance of reversing VDOT's decision to create a full-time toll road that also requires the use of the E-ZPass transponder?"
Still images of the 95 Express Lanes from North to South, taken yesterday and posted on Facebook (you do not need a Facebook account to see these): https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10204418042243252&type=1&l=5a4961a43d
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 21, 2014, 11:40:20 PM
Still images of the 95 Express Lanes from North to South, taken yesterday and posted on Facebook (you do not need a Facebook account to see these): https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10204418042243252&type=1&l=5a4961a43d
Thanks for sharing! I agree with 1995hoo's comment on how Transurban did a pretty good job on the signage.
Quote from: oscar on December 21, 2014, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 21, 2014, 03:26:55 PM
Yesterday CPZ and I took a ride down the new lanes. The intent was to drive south, have late lunch in Fredericksburg and take our time, and then take the lanes back north after 4. Our plan was thwarted because they never did a midday reversal, the lanes were open southbound all day.
I'm hoping that Transurban follows a Saturday schedule on Christmas Day so I can do what you tried to do. Since the lanes will need to be open southbound for the Christmas Eve evening rush, and probably northbound for the Boxing Day morning rush (for those commuting that day, rather than making returns at the malls -- but most Federal workers will have the day off), I expect Transurban will need to reverse the lanes at some point, and hope it'll do it midday on Christmas.
But I'm not betting the ranch on that. Hopefully Transurban will stick better to its schedules once it starts charging tolls.
To me it seems that the most important thing is to keep a schedule in place that can be easily found. I would expect that any week with a major holiday should have some type of shift that is different from the norm.
The norm:
SUN All day north
MON Northbound until 11 a.m., closed 11-1, southbound 1 - 12 MID
TUE WED THURS FRI Closed 12 Mid - 2 am, Northbound 2 am - 11 am, closed 11-1, southbound 1pm -12 MID
SAT Southbound 12 MID - 2pm, Closed 2pm-4pm, Northbound 4pm-MID.
The question then comes up regarding major holidays, minor holidays, and days that aren't officially holidays but have a lot of people not working (like Boxing Day or the day after Thanksgiving, etc.)
I'm not sure what is actually done, but I would impose the following:
Minor holidays: Columbus, Vets, MLK, Pres Day - weekday reversion schedule with no HOV restictions.
If a major holiday (exc. July 4) is on a Monday - all day northbound.
If Xmas/NY is on Tuesday - Mon and Tuesday should be all day northbound.
If Xmas/NY is on Wed. -Wed. all day northbound.
If Xmas/NY/Thanksgiving is on Thursday - Thursday and Friday should be all day southbound.
If Xmas/NY is on Friday- Friday should be all day southbound.
July 4 should be reversible for fireworks.
Yes, some people may work on Christmas Eve or Boxing Day, but by and large the vacationers hold more of the traffic and the lanes should be adjusted for them.
But again, clear schedule on the website for the changes.
Good pictures. We had no delays at all at the southern end, but it was early morning.
Main thing that stuck in my mind was how the road felt like a very different place due to the loss of the trees in the median.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 22, 2014, 05:45:41 PM
Main thing that stuck in my mind was how the road felt like a very different place due to the loss of the trees in the median.
Same story in NJ on the GSP.
The "decision points" on the lanes don't appear to be well signed. Were there other signs that listed toll rates on the mainline?
Quote from: mrsman on December 22, 2014, 12:34:35 AM
Quote from: oscar on December 21, 2014, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 21, 2014, 03:26:55 PM
Yesterday CPZ and I took a ride down the new lanes. The intent was to drive south, have late lunch in Fredericksburg and take our time, and then take the lanes back north after 4. Our plan was thwarted because they never did a midday reversal, the lanes were open southbound all day.
I'm hoping that Transurban follows a Saturday schedule on Christmas Day so I can do what you tried to do. Since the lanes will need to be open southbound for the Christmas Eve evening rush, and probably northbound for the Boxing Day morning rush (for those commuting that day, rather than making returns at the malls -- but most Federal workers will have the day off), I expect Transurban will need to reverse the lanes at some point, and hope it'll do it midday on Christmas.
But I'm not betting the ranch on that. Hopefully Transurban will stick better to its schedules once it starts charging tolls.
To me it seems that the most important thing is to keep a schedule in place that can be easily found. I would expect that any week with a major holiday should have some type of shift that is different from the norm.
The norm:
SUN All day north
MON Northbound until 11 a.m., closed 11-1, southbound 1 - 12 MID
TUE WED THURS FRI Closed 12 Mid - 2 am, Northbound 2 am - 11 am, closed 11-1, southbound 1pm -12 MID
SAT Southbound 12 MID - 2pm, Closed 2pm-4pm, Northbound 4pm-MID.
The question then comes up regarding major holidays, minor holidays, and days that aren't officially holidays but have a lot of people not working (like Boxing Day or the day after Thanksgiving, etc.)
I'm not sure what is actually done, but I would impose the following:
Minor holidays: Columbus, Vets, MLK, Pres Day - weekday reversion schedule with no HOV restictions.
If a major holiday (exc. July 4) is on a Monday - all day northbound.
If Xmas/NY is on Tuesday - Mon and Tuesday should be all day northbound.
If Xmas/NY is on Wed. -Wed. all day northbound.
If Xmas/NY/Thanksgiving is on Thursday - Thursday and Friday should be all day southbound.
If Xmas/NY is on Friday- Friday should be all day southbound.
July 4 should be reversible for fireworks.
Yes, some people may work on Christmas Eve or Boxing Day, but by and large the vacationers hold more of the traffic and the lanes should be adjusted for them.
But again, clear schedule on the website for the changes.
Due to Federal regulations, I'm pretty sure that any workday, they must have the lanes pointed north in the AM and south in the PM, with HOV rules in effect. Christmas Eve and Boxing Day are technically not holidays, and if people have to work, the lanes have to accommodate commuters first. For "soft holidays" like Columbus Day, President's Day, etc., they can reverse the lanes but without HOV restrictions. Only on actual holidays do you not do any reversals.
The 4th of July, the lanes always go inbound to the fireworks all day, and reverse during the show to provide extra outbound lanes after the fireworks. This can lead to an epic disaster heading SB if 4th of July falls on a Friday, and people are trying to leave town at the same time the fireworks people are trying to get to the mall. I had it take me 2.5 hours to get from Springfield to Fredericksburg on one such 4th of July.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 21, 2014, 03:26:55 PM
As a result of no realistic way to control congestion, there was a 25 minute backup to exit the lanes at the southern end (and barely any delay on the mainline). Then because the lanes never opened northbound, that direction was gridlock most of the way to the Beltway. So not exactly the best experience.
Looking at the pics I see the Express Lanes were backed up way further than any of the 5 workdays I've driven the mainline through there in afternoon rush since they opened.
In my experience, the old HOV used to have that same phenomenon - mainline moves faster at the end of the HOV lanes than the HOV lanes move - when there was a backup on 95 that started further south than the end of the HOV lanes. I'm leaning towards exiting the toll lanes at Dumfries or Triangle when I start using them next week. But it will probably be well into next year before enough experience in "normal" rush hour conditions is gained to know where the best place to get back on the mainline is.
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2014, 12:32:12 PM
I'm leaning towards exiting the toll lanes at Dumfries or Triangle when I start using them next week. But it will probably be well into next year before enough experience in "normal" rush hour conditions is gained to know where the best place to get back on the mainline is.
I assume that Transurban is contractually obligated to keep everything running at free-flow conditions (free-flow quite possibly being 45 MPH in this context, because it is used in both federal regulations and statute in discussion about what meets the definition of a
degraded HOV facility), which may result in some
remarkably high toll rates in the southern segment, perhaps especially outside of traditional commute times.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 22, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
The 4th of July, the lanes always go inbound to the fireworks all day, and reverse during the show to provide extra outbound lanes after the fireworks. This can lead to an epic disaster heading SB if 4th of July falls on a Friday, and people are trying to leave town at the same time the fireworks people are trying to get to the mall. I had it take me 2.5 hours to get from Springfield to Fredericksburg on one such 4th of July.
That is pretty horrible. Only time I am aware of that sort of a melt-down was during winter weather when there was a crash of many vehicles somewhere in Stafford County (might have been south of Exit 148).
If I knew it was going to be that bad ahead of time, I would definitely bail out to the west, or to the east on U.S. 301 from Maryland (but
never U.S. 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway)).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 23, 2014, 01:36:50 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 22, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
The 4th of July, the lanes always go inbound to the fireworks all day, and reverse during the show to provide extra outbound lanes after the fireworks. This can lead to an epic disaster heading SB if 4th of July falls on a Friday, and people are trying to leave town at the same time the fireworks people are trying to get to the mall. I had it take me 2.5 hours to get from Springfield to Fredericksburg on one such 4th of July.
That is pretty horrible. Only time I am aware of that sort of a melt-down was during winter weather when there was a crash of many vehicles somewhere in Stafford County (might have been south of Exit 148).
If I knew it was going to be that bad ahead of time, I would definitely bail out to the west, or to the east on U.S. 301 from Maryland (but never U.S. 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway)).
That was a 100+ car wreck spread out over a mile in Stafford County. The wreck field was so large that there were pockets of cars within that managed to come to a stop without hitting anything. That caused my commute to be 6.5 hrs.
Springfield to Fredericksburg in 2.5 hrs or worse happens several times a year regardless of which way the HOV is pointing...
Something weird is happening today. Already at 2:45 the express lanes are backed up to SR 619 and the mainline is also backed up that far from US 17 Falmouth (17 miles). Probably a wreck at the Rappahannock River - it is wide open south of the river. I expect it will take 3+ hours to get home this evening.
Don't see how 45 mph will be able to maintained at the very south end because 1) There is a 30 mph S curve at the end and 2) Once tolls begin there will be more cars than now. Only once in the now 6 days I've seen was it free flowing at the south end.
Mapmikey
16+ years of commuting in this...
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2014, 02:56:14 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 23, 2014, 01:36:50 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 22, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
The 4th of July, the lanes always go inbound to the fireworks all day, and reverse during the show to provide extra outbound lanes after the fireworks. This can lead to an epic disaster heading SB if 4th of July falls on a Friday, and people are trying to leave town at the same time the fireworks people are trying to get to the mall. I had it take me 2.5 hours to get from Springfield to Fredericksburg on one such 4th of July.
That is pretty horrible. Only time I am aware of that sort of a melt-down was during winter weather when there was a crash of many vehicles somewhere in Stafford County (might have been south of Exit 148).
If I knew it was going to be that bad ahead of time, I would definitely bail out to the west, or to the east on U.S. 301 from Maryland (but never U.S. 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway)).
That was a 100+ car wreck spread out over a mile in Stafford County. The wreck field was so large that there were pockets of cars within that managed to come to a stop without hitting anything. That caused my commute to be 6.5 hrs.
Springfield to Fredericksburg in 2.5 hrs or worse happens several times a year regardless of which way the HOV is pointing...
Something weird is happening today. Already at 2:45 the express lanes are backed up to SR 619 and the mainline is also backed up that far from US 17 Falmouth (17 miles). Probably a wreck at the Rappahannock River - it is wide open south of the river. I expect it will take 3+ hours to get home this evening.
Don't see how 45 mph will be able to maintained at the very south end because 1) There is a 30 mph S curve at the end and 2) Once tolls begin there will be more cars than now. Only once in the now 6 days I've seen was it free flowing at the south end.
Mapmikey
16+ years of commuting in this...
It's also free right now too, so many more people are taking the HO/T lanes compared to when they'll be paying for them.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2014, 03:46:17 PM
It's also free right now too, so many more people are taking the HO/T lanes compared to when they'll be paying for them.
If he was traveling during rush hour, the backups were happening strictly with HOV traffic. This merge could replace the one that was on the NJTP south of 8A for "most notorious". It also may cost Trans-Urban some toll dollars, particularly if its impossible to eliminate that backup with higher tolls. Why bother paying any toll if the end of the lanes is always going to be backed up anyway?
During rush hours, there will be plenty of non-HOV traffic. Anecdotal evidence suggests that drivers stopped obeying HOV rules to the letter when the express lanes opened last weekend.
As others have said, the lanes are new, and there are large numbers of people checking out the lanes that won't use them when tolls go into effect. Even some HOV traffic will get pushed out because not all HOV traffic (especially on "Getaway Days" (TM) ) will have a Flex transponder and won't use the lanes anymore when tolls go into effect.
I presume that the 45 MPH "guarantee" won't apply to the lanes after they narrow from 2 lanes into 1 because at that point you are basically on a ramp and not on a mainline roadway anymore. If they operate it like they do on 495 at the north end, they will jack the price up high enough so that traffic moves at free flow up to the point where it narrows to one lane, and you hit the tail of the backup there. In otherwords, price accordingly so some traffic bails early at the Quantico flyover, and others exit at Garrisonville. Since the last entrance points to the southern segment only has the ability to exit in 3 places (234, Quantico, Garrisonville), the price to each of those points will be listed. You might see, for the last segment, $1.00 to 234, $2.00 to 619, and $12 to Garrisonville. That would certainly encourage me to exit early!
Quote from: mtantillo on December 23, 2014, 08:43:17 PM
During rush hours, there will be plenty of non-HOV traffic. Anecdotal evidence suggests that drivers stopped obeying HOV rules to the letter when the express lanes opened last weekend.
As others have said, the lanes are new, and there are large numbers of people checking out the lanes that won't use them when tolls go into effect. Even some HOV traffic will get pushed out because not all HOV traffic (especially on "Getaway Days" (TM) ) will have a Flex transponder and won't use the lanes anymore when tolls go into effect.
I presume that the 45 MPH "guarantee" won't apply to the lanes after they narrow from 2 lanes into 1 because at that point you are basically on a ramp and not on a mainline roadway anymore. If they operate it like they do on 495 at the north end, they will jack the price up high enough so that traffic moves at free flow up to the point where it narrows to one lane, and you hit the tail of the backup there. In otherwords, price accordingly so some traffic bails early at the Quantico flyover, and others exit at Garrisonville. Since the last entrance points to the southern segment only has the ability to exit in 3 places (234, Quantico, Garrisonville), the price to each of those points will be listed. You might see, for the last segment, $1.00 to 234, $2.00 to 619, and $12 to Garrisonville. That would certainly encourage me to exit early!
Does anyone know if the price is determined based on the traffic in the main lanes or based on the traffic in the express lanes? To me, it would be self defeating to see a $12 toll like that, when the problem is in the design of the end of the express lanes.
Quote from: mrsman on December 24, 2014, 09:11:58 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 23, 2014, 08:43:17 PM
During rush hours, there will be plenty of non-HOV traffic. Anecdotal evidence suggests that drivers stopped obeying HOV rules to the letter when the express lanes opened last weekend.
As others have said, the lanes are new, and there are large numbers of people checking out the lanes that won't use them when tolls go into effect. Even some HOV traffic will get pushed out because not all HOV traffic (especially on "Getaway Days" (TM) ) will have a Flex transponder and won't use the lanes anymore when tolls go into effect.
I presume that the 45 MPH "guarantee" won't apply to the lanes after they narrow from 2 lanes into 1 because at that point you are basically on a ramp and not on a mainline roadway anymore. If they operate it like they do on 495 at the north end, they will jack the price up high enough so that traffic moves at free flow up to the point where it narrows to one lane, and you hit the tail of the backup there. In otherwords, price accordingly so some traffic bails early at the Quantico flyover, and others exit at Garrisonville. Since the last entrance points to the southern segment only has the ability to exit in 3 places (234, Quantico, Garrisonville), the price to each of those points will be listed. You might see, for the last segment, $1.00 to 234, $2.00 to 619, and $12 to Garrisonville. That would certainly encourage me to exit early!
Does anyone know if the price is determined based on the traffic in the main lanes or based on the traffic in the express lanes? To me, it would be self defeating to see a $12 toll like that, when the problem is in the design of the end of the express lanes.
Depends on who's viewing it. For Transurban, that's a nice windfall!
But if congestion is problematic, chances are there's going to be a quick demand for some sort of reconstruction improvement at the end there, if it's determined a longer acceleration lane can resolve the problem.
A potential issue is there's an interchange (Exit 143) not terribly far to the south of the lanes' southern end that may (I emphasize may) affect design there. Until I get home Sunday and download dashcam videos I won't have the best sense for how far away the interchange is because when I went through there I was more focused on dealing with the other traffic, including a guy doing about 40 mph in the right lane.
It is 1/2 mile from the end ramp of the express lanes until the exit to SR 610 west.
Two potential designs would've been better IMO (one of which is probably not doable after the fact):
1. Have I-95's exit ramp to SR 610 WEST start before the end of the HOoT lanes and go around to the right of the lanes so that there would've been no weave.
2. This should still be done: Extend the lanes a little past SR 610 to a merge onto mainline 95. This would be better than the same situation in Dumfries was because a sizable portion of people would still use the flyover to access SR 610. The way it is now, hardly anyone has to use the SR 619 flyover because not many people need Exits 148 or 150 in the afternoon rush, so the same amount of traffic that piled into 95 at Dumfries is doing so at the weave at Exit 143.
BTW, by the time I got down to the lanes end yesterday afternoon (about 3 hrs after my post above), the backup in both the mainline and the express lanes had dropped in half. It only took me 2 hr 5 minutes to do the whole 62 mile commute from Bethesda, which has been a typical wintertime commute the last few years.
Mapmikey
There is indeed a very busy slug lot at Route 610 that would keep the flyover busy if the lanes were extended.
As I recall, they had to dig into a hill in order to build that flyover, and there are townhouses on top of the hill. So Mike's #1, while still possibly doable, would be very expensive due to the volume of retaining wall required.
#2 is certainly doable and I agree that it should've been done and still should be done.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 24, 2014, 10:20:14 AM
Extend the lanes a little past SR 610 to a merge onto mainline 95.
I have a modest proposal - extend the Transurban lanes south to Massaponax U.S. 1/U.S. 17 South (Exit 126), though that may be a tough place for them to end - or - even better, to Thornburg Va. 606 (Exit 118) near the Spotsylvania County/Caroline County line.
Quote from: froggie on December 24, 2014, 11:47:16 AM
As I recall, they had to dig into a hill in order to build that flyover, and there are townhouses on top of the hill. So Mike's #1, while still possibly doable, would be very expensive due to the volume of retaining wall required.
#2 is certainly doable and I agree that it should've been done and still should be done.
There are definitely townhouses there. A new sound wall was built for them as part of the project.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2014, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 24, 2014, 10:20:14 AM
Extend the lanes a little past SR 610 to a merge onto mainline 95.
I have a modest proposal - extend the Transurban lanes south to Massaponax U.S. 1/U.S. 17 South (Exit 126), though that may be a tough place for them to end - or - even better, to Thornburg Va. 606 (Exit 118) near the Spotsylvania County/Caroline County line.
This is still apparently desired by VDOT - they are getting ready to rebuild the Fall Hill Ave (old SR 639) overpass in Fredericksburg and it will be done such that it can accommodate extension of the Express lanes.
Extending the lanes a little past the 610 overpass wouldn't be that hard. They already cleared 95% of the median down to the overpass and the overpass needs no modification at all.
Separately, VDOT wants to add a 4th general purpose lane from SR 610 south to Centreport Pkwy. This project is listed on VDOT's website as "in design" but it notes that funding was deallocated in the draft revision to the 2015-2020 SYIP. Can't say I understand adding a 4th lane there and not also in parts north of there unless the express lanes will NEVER be extended to Fredericksburg. Then it would make sense to have the express lane become the 4th lane.
Mapmikey
Extending down to Massaponax wouldn't be a "modest" project. That's another 17 miles with a major river crossing. easily a 9-digit project. No need to go to Thornburg, either....there's a noticeable (statistically, 18%) traffic drop at the Massaponax interchange.
On VDOT's website there is no mention whether or not the proposed projects to add C/D lanes and new additional bridges at the Rappahannock River and the project to rebuild Exit 140 into a monster interchange will be done with Express lane extension in mind.
Public meetings are coming in early 2015 on the Rappahannock project so maybe more info will come out from that...
I also agree taking express lanes to Thornburg is not needed, but I would be ok with adding a 4th general purpose lane down to I-295 north of Richmond. 95 is frequently very crowded on this stretch.
Mapmikey
in my experience, it's not that bad between Massaponax and Ashland. I can agree with the need for a 4th lane south of Ashland, but I'd categorize north of there as a "nice-to-have-but-not-necessary"...
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 24, 2014, 07:25:52 PM
I also agree taking express lanes to Thornburg is not needed, but I would be ok with adding a 4th general purpose lane down to I-295 north of Richmond. 95 is frequently very crowded on this stretch.
I agree with you that the current traffic volumes do not justify it -
on weekdays.
But more to the point, I think Exit 126 (or north of Exit 126) may be a very tough place to end the managed lanes for operational reasons, assuming that they were to be extended south of Va. 610 (Garrisonville Road) at all.
Washington Post: Carpoolers offered new deal on 95 Express Lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/toll-lanes-lead-way-to-major-expansion-of-highway-capacity-in-virginia-and-maryland/2014/12/25/4b5e1e40-8ab9-11e4-9e8d-0c687bc18da4_story.html)
QuoteThe key for carpoolers who want to continue using the 95 Express Lanes is having a specialized type of E-ZPass called the Flex. But many carpoolers are like Christmas shoppers who wait till the eve to buy something for a spouse. They know it's important, yet they haven't made the season's critical acquisition.
QuoteMonday is the day when the express lanes, free to all for their first two weeks, become high-occupancy toll lanes. Commuters will either ride for free as carpoolers or pay a toll. The toll will vary with the level of traffic, but the lane operator's estimate is 20 cents to 80 cents per mile.
QuoteDrivers will pay the toll via a standard E-ZPass. They will claim the free ride as carpoolers by switching the E-ZPass Flex transponder to the "HOV on" setting. A driver without either is going to get a bill, because the tolling equipment will record an image of the driver's license plate.
Quote from: oscar on December 21, 2014, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 21, 2014, 03:26:55 PM
Yesterday CPZ and I took a ride down the new lanes. The intent was to drive south, have late lunch in Fredericksburg and take our time, and then take the lanes back north after 4. Our plan was thwarted because they never did a midday reversal, the lanes were open southbound all day.
I'm hoping that Transurban follows a Saturday schedule on Christmas Day so I can do what you tried to do. Since the lanes will need to be open southbound for the Christmas Eve evening rush, and probably northbound for the Boxing Day morning rush (for those commuting that day, rather than making returns at the malls -- but most Federal workers will have the day off), I expect Transurban will need to reverse the lanes at some point, and hope it'll do it midday on Christmas.
But I'm not betting the ranch on that.
I got half my wish. The reversible lanes were pointed southbound Christmas morning, but were not reversed that afternoon, and traffic was continuing to flow south in those lanes until at least 5pm. So I had to use the main northbound lanes to get home.
But I did pop back south to Garrisonville this morning. The reversible lanes were pointed northbound by then, and so remained when I got on them around 10am for the return trip.
Traffic in the southbound lanes was moderate when I went south this morning, except a short delay due to a pedestrian on the right side of the road in a spot where the shoulder was barricaded off. But it was jammed much of the way later in the morning as I blew past it going northbound in the uncongested reversible lanes.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2014, 02:56:14 PM
That was a 100+ car wreck spread out over a mile in Stafford County. The wreck field was so large that there were pockets of cars within that managed to come to a stop without hitting anything. That caused my commute to be 6.5 hrs.
That's the one. If I remember, there was just a "little bit" of frozen stuff that fell on the untreated pavement, which may not have been anticipated by VDOT.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2014, 02:56:14 PM
Springfield to Fredericksburg in 2.5 hrs or worse happens several times a year regardless of which way the HOV is pointing...
Worst I have personally seen is between 2 and 2.5 hours from Triangle (Va. 619) to Southwest D.C. in the morning.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2014, 02:56:14 PM
Something weird is happening today. Already at 2:45 the express lanes are backed up to SR 619 and the mainline is also backed up that far from US 17 Falmouth (17 miles). Probably a wreck at the Rappahannock River - it is wide open south of the river. I expect it will take 3+ hours to get home this evening.
Don't see how 45 mph will be able to maintained at the very south end because 1) There is a 30 mph S curve at the end and 2) Once tolls begin there will be more cars than now. Only once in the now 6 days I've seen was it free flowing at the south end.
Mapmikey
16+ years of commuting in this...
You drive there much more than I do.
My guess is that things will "even out" pretty quickly during "traditional" southbound commute times, and SOV drivers will get used to the tolls, regardless of where they end up (though I do not know what Transurban does if all of the capacity is used-up by HOV-3 traffic).
I said 45 in those conditions because many (probably most) of the drivers in the PM rush will likely be regular drivers like you - people that are used to conditions, which will not change that much once everyone is used to the change.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2014, 02:55:58 PM
....
–Second picture is on the existing ramp from the southbound Parkway to southbound I-95. To the right is the new ramp connecting the HO/T lanes and Alban Road/Boudinot Drive. You may recall there used to be access to southbound I-95's general-purpose lanes at that intersection. What I found interesting was to see a toll gantry placed over an exit/entrance ramp. I believe this is the only place on either set of Northern Virginia HO/T lanes that I've seen a toll gantry over a ramp. There's a gantry out in the lanes themselves next to this ramp. I'm a bit curious as to why they configured it this way instead of just having two gantries out in the lanes themselves, but I suspect it might have something to do with there being a northbound slip ramp located just to the south of the ramp–might that have been too many gantries in too short an area or something?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBoudinotDriveHOTramptollgantry_zpsf85b84fb.png&hash=4d4f55e50a6e511d662a27c1327b9f75c79a25a9)
....
Coming north from the Auto Train station this morning after getting back from Florida I think I realized why the gantry noted above is over the ramp. We used the express lanes from the Newington northbound slip ramp to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. The distance between that slip ramp and the Boudinot Drive exit is minuscule. By putting the gantry over the ramp, they eliminate the possibility of someone entering the express lanes via that slip ramp, immediately exiting at Boudinot, and not paying a toll to do so.
I drove the lanes southbound yesterday. I can see why backups were occurring at the southern end. The curves on the flyover back to I-95 seemed to catch a few folks by surprise (myself included) causing some slowdowns. I wouldn't be surprised if a car lands up in the parking lot of that condo complex next to the ramp in the future when they overshoot the ramp. :P Overall it was a pleasant ride down, i did hit a random backup at the Rappahannock Falls bridge and thru Fredericksburg and later in Ashland.
Northbound there are only 2 segments, with the SR 644 flyover as the transition.
At 5:05 this morning, the toll was $5.15 for the southern segment and $1.15 for the northern one. This is $0.22 per mile.
From the mainline's perspective (and maybe from the express lanes too...too much info to process at that hour), the toll was the same to VA 286 and SR 644; also the toll was the same to the beltway and the northern end.
Mapmikey
I'm off this week, so I drove my wife to work this morning given the lack of traffic. Took Van Dorn to the Beltway and up the I-395 general-purpose lanes. Didn't see any reason to cut across six lanes of the Beltway just to use that short segment of the express lanes.
The Beltway sign for the inbound express lanes refers to Turkeycock as "395-236." Toll this morning from the Beltway to Turkeycock was $1.00. It looked funny to see just the one line of text ("395-236 $1.00") on the VMS panel, but of course there's only the one exit north of the Beltway.
I did not manage to get a look over at the express lanes to see whether and to what extent the cops may have been doing HOV enforcement at Turkeycock because I was focused on the traffic around me. (No dashcam, we took my wife's car so I could fill the gas tank.) I did note the last VMS over the express lanes said non-HOVs had to exit ahead. I had previously suggested a fixed sign to that effect, but after seeing it, I think the VMS makes more sense for that purpose. Among other reasons, it's more attention-grabbing.
I assume from the sign on the Beltway that the express lane signs will refer to flyovers or slip ramps back to the mainline as "95-[route number]," such as "95-644" for the northbound flyover in Newington. It occurred to me that this is the sort of information they could post on their website in conjunction with the maps. My wife thought the "395-236" wording was confusing.
Depending on how the day evolves I might go out this afternoon to look at the toll-rate signs.
I realized as we were driving up Van Dorn Street that the new system opens up a new option to people in my part of the county. Some mornings it can take over half an hour to go the two miles from our neighborhood to Eisenhower Avenue. The toll lanes give a new option that didn't exist before because we can now go the other way, enter the northbound reversible lanes from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, cross the Beltway, and then exit to the I-395 mainline. Previously we had to work our way through Springfield to the general-purpose lanes.
Edited to add: Incidentally, on my way home it looked like it was mostly HOV traffic with the Flex transponders. The white lights on the Turkeycock gantry were blinking constantly as I went past there.
Other designations they are using NB:
95 - 123
FC PKWY
95 - 644
FRAN-SPR
I-495
No idea if this was true before with the 495 express lanes but at https://www.expresslanes.com/on-the-road you can click on the pink buttons and it shows you verbatim what the VMS toll signs say right then.
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 29, 2014, 09:55:48 AM
....
No idea if this was true before with the 495 express lanes but at https://www.expresslanes.com/on-the-road you can click on the pink buttons and it shows you verbatim what the VMS toll signs say right then.
I believe that's been available for the Beltway lanes for a while. My thought is a little different, though–it seems to me it'd be useful for people if they could use the interactive map to learn what, if anything, the sign might say to refer to a given exit. That is, you can go online and see that if you enter from northbound Route 1 in Woodbridge the sign will list FC PKWY for $x.yz and 95-644 for $a.bc, but if you don't know what "95-644" means, it won't help you a whole lot.
I suppose for the primary target market–regular commuters–it won't matter much because most of them will figure it out after a few trips.
For those interested in the discussion about the lanes' southern end, here's video from our southbound trip last weekend. I haven't been through there in the other direction since the lanes opened because the Auto Train drops you off much further to the north.
Sound muted due to conversation.
Going back to earlier discussion, the townhouses visible at about 1:38 of hoo's video are why a separate Garrisonville ramp from 95 before the flyover isn't a realistic option.
I-495 Express Lanes from the entrance at the north end to Springfield only $3.65 toll even though 2 of the "free" lanes are blocked for a fatal crash investigation by VSP on the Outer Loop between Va. 7 and I-66.
I'm sure it was discussed previously, but why did they do a flyover for the merge back into the regular lanes, rather than just merge the HOT lanes onto the left side of the free lanes. Even makes more sense especially as the HOT speed limit is 65 mph, allowing the faster traffic to flow onto the left, faster side of the highway.
Sure, keep the flyover for those needing to access the first exit there (kinda like the flyover from I-495 in Wilmington DE to access the DE 141 Exits), but for traffic continuing south, a simple merge on the left would appear to offer a more seamless merge at the end of the HOT lanes.
Tolls from the beltway south to the lanes end were about $18 a little while ago but have dropped to $16ish in the last few minutes...
Another long back up starting at US 17 back to Triangle has emerged...
Mapmikey
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2014, 02:16:03 PM
I'm sure it was discussed previously, but why did they do a flyover for the merge back into the regular lanes, rather than just merge the HOT lanes onto the left side of the free lanes. Even makes more sense especially as the HOT speed limit is 65 mph, allowing the faster traffic to flow onto the left, faster side of the highway.
Sure, keep the flyover for those needing to access the first exit there (kinda like the flyover from I-495 in Wilmington DE to access the DE 141 Exits), but for traffic continuing south, a simple merge on the left would appear to offer a more seamless merge at the end of the HOT lanes.
I saw some roadwork in the I-95 median just south of the flyover ramp. That might be to extend the HO/T lanes a little south to let through traffic merge into southbound I-95 from the left, as you suggest.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2014, 02:16:03 PM
I'm sure it was discussed previously, but why did they do a flyover for the merge back into the regular lanes, rather than just merge the HOT lanes onto the left side of the free lanes. Even makes more sense especially as the HOT speed limit is 65 mph, allowing the faster traffic to flow onto the left, faster side of the highway.
Sure, keep the flyover for those needing to access the first exit there (kinda like the flyover from I-495 in Wilmington DE to access the DE 141 Exits), but for traffic continuing south, a simple merge on the left would appear to offer a more seamless merge at the end of the HOT lanes.
I don't know, though I note the speed limit in the general-purpose lanes is 65 there as well (going southbound, it goes from 55 to 60 south of Route 123 and then from 60 to 65 just north of the weigh station). The flyover there is important because of that interchange, as you note. There's a fairly popular slug lot located there. (For those unfamiliar, slugging is our term for what Californians call "casual carpooling"–people line up to get rides from drivers who want to use the HOV but don't have enough passengers.)
I
suspect, though it's just a guess, that the overall bad experience with the HOV lanes' old southern terminus (a left-side merge just south of Route 234) may have factored into the decision to use a flyover.
I've seen a number of comments saying the northbound entrance at the southern terminus should have been constructed as a flyover to reduce the need for people entering the highway there to cut across all the thru lanes to get to the express lane entrance.
The real solution here is to extend the Transurban I-95 HOV/toll lanes as far south as money allows.
Not going back through 25 pages of this thread, so I'll ask here... wtf is a Turkeycock gantry??? :confused: Wiki and Google aren't helping.
ixnay
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 29, 2014, 04:01:51 PM
Tolls from the beltway south to the lanes end were about $18 a little while ago but have dropped to $16ish in the last few minutes...
Another long back up starting at US 17 back to Triangle has emerged...
Mapmikey
So, nothing has really changed. I haven gotten stuck in the same backup before the extension was built. I've always called it the Fredericksburg crawl.
Quote from: ixnay on December 29, 2014, 04:37:40 PM
Not going back through 25 pages of this thread, so I'll ask here... wtf is a Turkeycock gantry??? :confused: Wiki and Google aren't helping.
ixnay
"Turkeycock" is the name (not generally known by most of the public) for a set of flyovers and slip ramps connecting the I-395 reversible and general-purpose lanes between Edsall Road (secondary route 648) and Duke Street (primary route 236). The name "Turkeycock" does not refer to a bird's male member but rather to Turkeycock Run, which passes under the highway there. A "run" in this context is essentially a stream that's larger than a small creek. (Cue puns about a "cock" and a "stream"....)
So "Turkeycock gantry" in this particular context refers to a toll gantry located just to the south of the Turkeycock ramps. Those ramps are also the point where, going north, the HO/T system ends and the reversible lanes transition to being peak-hour HOV lanes.
Edited to add: Google Maps link here (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8112912,-77.1503974,17z), although it doesn't show the new northbound flyover taking traffic out of the reversible roadway into the general-purpose lanes. You can see Turkeycock Run Stream Valley Park marked on the map along with the stream itself.
So by the time I got to the Springfield Interchange (using 495 express lanes all the way), the toll to the south end of 95's express lanes was down to $11.
I was able to drive 60-70 mph no problem all the way to the flyover at the very end.
I passed a VMS on the mainline that said "VA 234 - 16 miles, 48 minutes" - I got there via express lane in 14. By the time I had travelled 48 minutes, I had pulled up in front of my house, 22 miles south of VA 234. The backup from US 17 had also eased to about 4 miles worth of 25 mph travel.
There was a wreck on the mainline just before the end flyover in Garrisonville. So I estimate overall I saved an hour by using all the toll roads possible.
The most expensive thing I noticed is that the toll to use the new ramp from I-95 SB at Exit 161 to then get right back off at the VA 123 exit, was over $3. It probably would save somebody 10 minutes over working through the lane squeeze at Woodbridge for someone who was going to exit at 123.
Mapmikey
Sounds like a decent first day. And based on the Wapo comments, you would have thought the world was going to end today!
Dr. Gridlock in Washington Post: First experiences with I-95 HOT lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/12/29/first-experiences-with-i-95-hot-lanes/)
QuoteThis was not a normal morning on Interstate 95, and not just because it was the first day for tolling in the 95 Express Lanes. Traffic generally seemed light for this heavily traveled corridor in Northern Virginia.
QuoteAs the afternoon rush began with the reversible lanes opening southbound, Virginia State Police spokeswoman Corinne Geller said via e-mail that there was "nothing to report in the way of any significant problems or issues with this morning's rush hour ... All went well, and state police are hoping for much the same as the afternoon to evening rush hour soon commences."
QuoteE-ZPass. Based strictly on observations of passing drivers, I would say that many were traveling solo on Monday morning, with E-ZPasses mounted on their windshields. Maybe the carpoolers are still on holiday. Most vehicles had Virginia plates. But on the second run, the one that started at 8:21 a.m., I noticed many out-of-state vehicles. New York and New Jersey plates made up the largest contingents. It's tough to spot an E-ZPass transponder when a vehicle passes at 80 mph, so it's hard to be sure, but more often than not, I could not see a transponder.
QuoteDrivers who use the lanes without a transponder are going to get a bill in the mail, wherever the registered owner lives.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 29, 2014, 04:42:33 PM
"Turkeycock" is the name (not generally known by most of the public) for a set of flyovers and slip ramps connecting the I-395 reversible and general-purpose lanes between Edsall Road (secondary route 648) and Duke Street (primary route 236). The name "Turkeycock" does not refer to a bird's male member but rather to Turkeycock Run, which passes under the highway there. A "run" in this context is essentially a stream that's larger than a small creek. (Cue puns about a "cock" and a "stream"....)
I have tried several times (and failed) to get VDOT to sign Turkeycock Run in the express lanes, as well as the northbound and southbound conventional lanes. Has not happened.
Dr. Gridlock in Washington Post
QuoteE-ZPass. Based strictly on observations of passing drivers, I would say that many were traveling solo on Monday morning, with E-ZPasses mounted on their windshields. Maybe the carpoolers are still on holiday. Most vehicles had Virginia plates. But on the second run, the one that started at 8:21 a.m., I noticed many out-of-state vehicles. New York and New Jersey plates made up the largest contingents. It's tough to spot an E-ZPass transponder when a vehicle passes at 80 mph, so it's hard to be sure, but more often than not, I could not see a transponder.
Being that many NY & NJ drivers have EZ Passes due to most roads, driveways, and supermarket checkout lanes having toll plazas in those two states, I'm wondering if Dr. Gridlock wasn't looking too good in those vehicles. Those state's drivers are pretty good regarding the EZ Pass usage. It's drivers in states without EZ Pass that tend to get fouled up.
As for carpooling - the week between Christmas & New Years is tough. In my carpool of 4, I'm the only one working this week. Even if 2 of us were working, we'd still be excluded from a HOV/HOT-3 roadway (well, we wouldn't get free passage at least). Next week would be a better test as to how the carpooling option is working.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 29, 2014, 10:58:10 PM
Sounds like a decent first day. And based on the Wapo comments, you would have thought the world was going to end today!
So many of those people pre-judged the entire thing such that in their minds, any little hiccup, however minimal, "proves" them "correct" in their opposition to the project.
I still have deep reservations about the I-95 project and its impact on the general-purpose lanes (I suspect traffic out there will get worse than it used to be once the Christmas/New Year's lull is over), but I see little point in acting like the people who rail against it, say the tolls need to be abolished, etc. The time for those arguments was years ago when the project was first proposed.
BTW, I drove my wife to work again today, same route as yesterday (i.e., local lanes only), and I observed a fair number of SOVs in the HO/T segment continuing on into the HOV segment. They weren't driving clean-fuel vehicles, either. I suspect there will be a lot of that and that the State Police will be quite busy nailing HOV violators. Didn't see any enforcement out there today, though, and on the way home the cops were all in the northbound local lanes dealing with what looked like a truck accident of some sort.
Edited in early afternoon to add–
The following rant just appeared in the comments to Dr. Gridlock's latest blog entry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/12/30/95-express-lanes-operator-eases-transition-to-tolling/). This one amuses me greatly because (a) it's so whiny and (b) more importantly, the guy drives an expensive BMW two-seater yet complains about his inability to use HOV-3 lanes. Seems to me if you move to a location where an HOV facility is an important transportation feature, yet you buy a vehicle that renders you ineligible to use said HOV facility, you have no basis for complaint. You should have bought a different car if you'd wanted to use those lanes!
QuoteI live in Stafford, VA the fees they are charging are too high for someone who does a daily commute and before you say I should HOV-3 forget about it. It is quite difficult for find three people who can ride with me to work on my schedule AND anywhere near me. And more importantly I drive a Z4, only two seats. I used to use the HOV lanes when they allowed me to get on them early, not now. This morning I watched a hand full of folks using the HOV, probably unaware that they were going to get zonked with a nice fee via mail. These lanes are going to largely be unused, thanks to big fees and ridiculous HOV-3 requirements. Congestion would have been better served with a use for all expansion of I-95 nearly doubling the capacity one way at a time with a true benefit for all as opposed to a tiny portion of the population who might be willing to pay these fees.
Replied to one of your comments. Specifically, that "big sea of parking" at the Pentagon is off-limits to most.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 30, 2014, 09:36:17 AM
The following rant just appeared in the comments to Dr. Gridlock's latest blog entry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/12/30/95-express-lanes-operator-eases-transition-to-tolling/). This one amuses me greatly because (a) it's so whiny and (b) more importantly, the guy drives an expensive BMW two-seater yet complains about his inability to use HOV-3 lanes. Seems to me if you move to a location where an HOV facility is an important transportation feature, yet you buy a vehicle that renders you ineligible to use said HOV facility, you have no basis for complaint. You should have bought a different car if you'd wanted to use those lanes!
QuoteI live in Stafford, VA the fees they are charging are too high for someone who does a daily commute and before you say I should HOV-3 forget about it. It is quite difficult for find three people who can ride with me to work on my schedule AND anywhere near me. And more importantly I drive a Z4, only two seats. I used to use the HOV lanes when they allowed me to get on them early, not now. This morning I watched a hand full of folks using the HOV, probably unaware that they were going to get zonked with a nice fee via mail. These lanes are going to largely be unused, thanks to big fees and ridiculous HOV-3 requirements. Congestion would have been better served with a use for all expansion of I-95 nearly doubling the capacity one way at a time with a true benefit for all as opposed to a tiny portion of the population who might be willing to pay these fees.
If he had only said he was using the HOV-2 lanes with a fellow passenger, and now he was unable to due to his 2 seater, he would potentially have a valid complaint. Hell, he could have even offered a possibility that 2 seaters can use the HOV-3 lanes for free under the reasoning that he is using the available capacity of his vehicle.
But otherwise, you're right - he's coming off as a complainer who, I'm guessing, used the HOV-2 lanes and got away with it because of lenient enforcement and lack of EZ Pass checkpoints.
In addition...
If that guy was using the HOV before enforcement hours, I can tell you from 17 years experience that at that time of the morning from at least Stafford to the Beltway the mainline runs wide open 95% of the time, so he doesn't need the lanes northbound in the morning...
Mapmikey
Saved 45 minutes today...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2014, 07:08:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 30, 2014, 09:36:17 AM
The following rant just appeared in the comments to Dr. Gridlock's latest blog entry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/12/30/95-express-lanes-operator-eases-transition-to-tolling/). This one amuses me greatly because (a) it's so whiny and (b) more importantly, the guy drives an expensive BMW two-seater yet complains about his inability to use HOV-3 lanes. Seems to me if you move to a location where an HOV facility is an important transportation feature, yet you buy a vehicle that renders you ineligible to use said HOV facility, you have no basis for complaint. You should have bought a different car if you'd wanted to use those lanes!
QuoteI live in Stafford, VA the fees they are charging are too high for someone who does a daily commute and before you say I should HOV-3 forget about it. It is quite difficult for find three people who can ride with me to work on my schedule AND anywhere near me. And more importantly I drive a Z4, only two seats. I used to use the HOV lanes when they allowed me to get on them early, not now. This morning I watched a hand full of folks using the HOV, probably unaware that they were going to get zonked with a nice fee via mail. These lanes are going to largely be unused, thanks to big fees and ridiculous HOV-3 requirements. Congestion would have been better served with a use for all expansion of I-95 nearly doubling the capacity one way at a time with a true benefit for all as opposed to a tiny portion of the population who might be willing to pay these fees.
If he had only said he was using the HOV-2 lanes with a fellow passenger, and now he was unable to due to his 2 seater, he would potentially have a valid complaint. Hell, he could have even offered a possibility that 2 seaters can use the HOV-3 lanes for free under the reasoning that he is using the available capacity of his vehicle.
But otherwise, you're right - he's coming off as a complainer who, I'm guessing, used the HOV-2 lanes and got away with it because of lenient enforcement and lack of EZ Pass checkpoints.
Thing is, he wasn't. I-95/395 has never been HOV-2, and Virginia law has always been clear that two-seaters aren't eligible for HOV-3 or -4 facilities (except for clean fuel vehicles eligible for an HOV exemption, such as the original Honda Insight).
Quote from: froggie on December 30, 2014, 06:50:57 PM
Replied to one of your comments. Specifically, that "big sea of parking" at the Pentagon is off-limits to most.
I replied to you–I have no DOD affiliation and can't park there, but I've never had a problem idling in a space for around 10 minutes waiting for HOV to end. Maybe I was just lucky. Doesn't matter now since I don't work in the city anymore.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 30, 2014, 07:21:32 PM
In addition...
If that guy was using the HOV before enforcement hours, I can tell you from 17 years experience that at that time of the morning from at least Stafford to the Beltway the mainline runs wide open 95% of the time, so he doesn't need the lanes northbound in the morning...
It has been my observation that the "free" lanes of I-95 (this is from Va. 630 at Stafford CH north) can get extremely disrupted by even the smallest of incidents, including disabled vehicles completely off on the shoulder.
Is this unique to I-95? No!
I have seen the same or similar dynamic on other overburdened freeway lanes such as I-66, I-270 and U.S. 50 in Maryland.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 30, 2014, 07:35:05 PM
Thing is, he wasn't. I-95/395 has never been HOV-2, and Virginia law has always been clear that two-seaters aren't eligible for HOV-3 or -4 facilities (except for clean fuel vehicles eligible for an HOV exemption, such as the original Honda Insight).
IMPO, HOV-2 is
not HOV. It is
not car-pooling. It is (as Bob Poole of Reason, who I think coined the term), mostly "fam-pools."
Some will say that HOV-2 results in higher average auto occupancy than unrestricted lanes, and that is usually correct. But for all of the personal reservations that I have (and have had) about the 95 Express lanes project, I think they have one thing right -
HOV is HOV-3, and anything less than HOV-3 has to pay. That is the correct approach, as it allows the real car-pools (and I
absolutely include the body snatchers and slugs in my own definition of a car-pool) to enjoy the much faster travel times of those lanes.
Having said all of that, and knowing where Mapmikey works (because he told me, and I will not share that information here), he probably cannot get any slugs to that destination from where he resides (he also told me in what county he resides, and I will not share that information either).
There is actually a van pool from my home area to my workplace but its schedule would in no way work for me.
I actually saw last week a commuter van running from Chester, VA to Fort Belvoir, which is about 100 miles one way. So they get to deal with Northern Virginia traffic and Richmond's though the time spent in Richmond is probably outside their real rush hour.
QuoteIt has been my observation that the "free" lanes of I-95 (this is from Va. 630 at Stafford CH north) can get extremely disrupted by even the smallest of incidents, including disabled vehicles completely off on the shoulder.
This is also true in the HOV lanes from Dale City northward but probably doesn't happen as much.
My theory was that if I took the HOV (pre-enforcement time) and something happened, I was stuck as it was 17 miles to the first exit. But if something happened on the mainline I could duck into the HOV if I wanted (and had done a few times over the years).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2014, 11:13:49 AM
IMPO, HOV-2 is not HOV. It is not car-pooling. It is (as Bob Poole of Reason, who I think coined the term), mostly "fam-pools."
Fair enough. But HOV-2 has its uses, even if it doesn't do much to promote car-pooling, if you need to impose only a mild restriction on rush-hour traffic.
For example, on I-66 inside the Beltway, there isn't enough capacity to let everybody travel it in rush hours, but taking just non-Dulles-exempt SOVs off the road brings traffic more in line with capacity, while insisting on a HOV-3/Dulles traffic restriction might underutilize existing capacity. (I say *might* because I've only once been able to legally drive I-66 during HOV hours, and there's been some rumblings about having to go to HOV-3 in a few years even with "spot improvements" to I-66.) But if we can get by with HOV-2 for now (which, with the Dulles exemption, is pretty much the lightest restriction possible), that seems reasonable.
HOV 2 is generally just as real as a carpool as HOV 3. And there's a reason why.
Let's say a carpool has 3 people in it. On average, a person is going to take about 20 - 25 days off from work a year. Vacation days, sick days, half days, etc. Thus, in a 3 person carpool, if people take off individual days that's about 60 - 75 days, or 25% and greater per year, that this carpool won't be able to use the carpool lanes.
Quote from: oscar on December 31, 2014, 12:49:17 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2014, 11:13:49 AM
IMPO, HOV-2 is not HOV. It is not car-pooling. It is (as Bob Poole of Reason, who I think coined the term), mostly "fam-pools."
Fair enough. But HOV-2 has its uses, even if it doesn't do much to promote car-pooling, if you need to impose only a mild restriction on rush-hour traffic.
I concede that. But the demands on highway infrstructure in the D.C. area are such that the vehicle-to-capacity ratio (V/C ratio) is not good even with an HOV-2 restriction.
Quote from: oscar on December 31, 2014, 12:49:17 PM
For example, on I-66 inside the Beltway, there isn't enough capacity to let everybody travel it in rush hours, but taking just non-Dulles-exempt SOVs off the road brings traffic more in line with capacity, while insisting on a HOV-3/Dulles traffic restriction might underutilize existing capacity. (I say *might* because I've only once been able to legally drive I-66 during HOV hours, and there's been some rumblings about having to go to HOV-3 in a few years even with "spot improvements" to I-66.) But if we can get by with HOV-2 for now (which, with the Dulles exemption, is pretty much the lightest restriction possible), that seems reasonable.
In my
personal opinion,
pricing I-66 to assure free-flow (like Md. 200, since we are talking about an entire managed road, not just managed lanes) but allowing HOV-3 and buses to use the road for free is a good balance (and I remember when I-66 between the Capital Beltway was HOV-
4 and then HOV-3).
Quote from: oscar on December 31, 2014, 12:49:17 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2014, 11:13:49 AM
IMPO, HOV-2 is not HOV. It is not car-pooling. It is (as Bob Poole of Reason, who I think coined the term), mostly "fam-pools."
Fair enough. But HOV-2 has its uses, even if it doesn't do much to promote car-pooling, if you need to impose only a mild restriction on rush-hour traffic.
For example, on I-66 inside the Beltway, there isn't enough capacity to let everybody travel it in rush hours, but taking just non-Dulles-exempt SOVs off the road brings traffic more in line with capacity, while insisting on a HOV-3/Dulles traffic restriction might underutilize existing capacity. (I say *might* because I've only once been able to legally drive I-66 during HOV hours, and there's been some rumblings about having to go to HOV-3 in a few years even with "spot improvements" to I-66.) But if we can get by with HOV-2 for now (which, with the Dulles exemption, is pretty much the lightest restriction possible), that seems reasonable.
I can confirm the HOV-2 can make a real difference. During college I worked at the Justice Department downtown and hitched a ride with my father because he worked nearby. Summer of 1994 we took 236 to Columbia Pike because I-66 was HOV-3. Usually took us about 45 minutes. That winter, they changed it to HOV-2, so in the summer of 1995 we took I-66 (route: 236 WEST to Pickett Road to Route 50, east on 50 to Nutley Street, north to I-66....reason for this was the Beltway was impossibly slow). During that summer, going HOV-2, we routinely made it downtown in 20 minutes. That's a big difference!
That was a long time ago, of course, and nowadays it doesn't seem to move as quickly inbound. It bogs down from the West Falls Church Metro to Exit 69. But OUTBOUND, in the afternoon, you can FLY. I've mentioned my wife works at the Watergate office complex. We've made it from her office to Tysons Corner in ten minutes going HOV-2 in the afternoons. Might have made it even faster if I didn't make a conscious effort not to exceed 65 mph on there. Last winter when I picked her up on a super-cold day, I tried Mike Tantillo's suggestion of using I-66 to the Beltway, then the HO/T lanes. It's way out of the way distance-wise since we live south of the Beltway, but we made it home in 26 minutes. Would have taken at least an hour via I-395.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2014, 02:13:46 PM
HOV 2 is generally just as real as a carpool as HOV 3. And there's a reason why.
Let's say a carpool has 3 people in it. On average, a person is going to take about 20 - 25 days off from work a year. Vacation days, sick days, half days, etc. Thus, in a 3 person carpool, if people take off individual days that's about 60 - 75 days, or 25% and greater per year, that this carpool won't be able to use the carpool lanes.
This sort of thing is one reason why slugging has done so well on the I-95/395 corridor. People don't have to try to form organized carpools and worry about each other's schedule, who's taking off work, finding substitute transportation when you have to work late, etc. You just pull into a commuter lot where people are standing on line for rides, tell the first person your destination (e.g., "14th and Constitution"), and he repeats it to the people behind him on line. First two people going there get in the car and away you go.
However, the HOV-3 (previously HOV-4) restriction is often cited as a major reason why slugging took off: People, especially women, seem to be more willing to get into a car with two complete strangers than with one stranger. The "safety in numbers" idea has some serious holes in it in this context, but I do understand why people feel that way.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 29, 2014, 04:14:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2014, 02:16:03 PM
I'm sure it was discussed previously, but why did they do a flyover for the merge back into the regular lanes, rather than just merge the HOT lanes onto the left side of the free lanes. Even makes more sense especially as the HOT speed limit is 65 mph, allowing the faster traffic to flow onto the left, faster side of the highway.
Sure, keep the flyover for those needing to access the first exit there (kinda like the flyover from I-495 in Wilmington DE to access the DE 141 Exits), but for traffic continuing south, a simple merge on the left would appear to offer a more seamless merge at the end of the HOT lanes.
I don't know, though I note the speed limit in the general-purpose lanes is 65 there as well (going southbound, it goes from 55 to 60 south of Route 123 and then from 60 to 65 just north of the weigh station). The flyover there is important because of that interchange, as you note. There's a fairly popular slug lot located there. (For those unfamiliar, slugging is our term for what Californians call "casual carpooling"–people line up to get rides from drivers who want to use the HOV but don't have enough passengers.)
I suspect, though it's just a guess, that the overall bad experience with the HOV lanes' old southern terminus (a left-side merge just south of Route 234) may have factored into the decision to use a flyover.
I've seen a number of comments saying the northbound entrance at the southern terminus should have been constructed as a flyover to reduce the need for people entering the highway there to cut across all the thru lanes to get to the express lane entrance.
IMO, it would be nice to have an access point from the HOT lanes to both the left and the right side of the freeway. Slip ramps to the left and flyovers to the right. For both exiting and entering.
Although the context is a little different, north of Los Angeles on I-5 (at the 405 interchange) there are truck lanes that can also be used by cars. If you want to stay left, use the main lanes. But if you need to exit just north of the interchange, using the truck lanes will put you on the right side of the freeway and avoid the need for having to merge across several lanes of traffic coming from the 405 to reach your exit.
Quote from: mrsman on January 02, 2015, 08:50:43 AM
IMO, it would be nice to have an access point from the HOT lanes to both the left and the right side of the freeway. Slip ramps to the left and flyovers to the right. For both exiting and entering.
I think right-of-way constraint in both the I-95 and I-495 corridors in Virginia preclude that. Remember that both started out as four-lane freeways.
Quote from: mrsman on January 02, 2015, 08:50:43 AM
Although the context is a little different, north of Los Angeles on I-5 (at the 405 interchange) there are truck lanes that can also be used by cars. If you want to stay left, use the main lanes. But if you need to exit just north of the interchange, using the truck lanes will put you on the right side of the freeway and avoid the need for having to merge across several lanes of traffic coming from the 405 to reach your exit.
Sounds like the I-5/I-210/I-405/Ca. 14 complex (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sylmar,+Los+Angeles,+CA&ll=34.314092,-118.479052&spn=0.05714,0.09244&cid=3924935756645228710&hnear=Sylmar,+Los+Angeles,+Los+Angeles+County,+California&t=m&z=14) at Sylmar at the extreme northern tip of the City of Los Angeles.
I've been checking prices today, because I'm curious what weekend prices would be like. This weekend is a pretty big travel weekend as everyone's vacations come to an end. I noticed a lot of traffic in general between Springfield and Fredericksburg.
This morning around noon, the price for the length of the 95 lanes was $5.85 (sum of 3 segments) heading south. When the lanes opened going north, the price was $5.25, a little later in the evening it was up to $6.05, but then was back down to $5.75 a few minutes later.
Seems like a pretty reasonable price for a guaranteed free flow trip...so much for those who said $50 would be the going price on weekends.
WTOP just tweeted a photo of a huge wreck on the Beltway at Van Dorn. We were just about to head up that way en route to the Kennedy Center. The express lanes provide an outstanding bypass option we shall be using! I like the way their website tells you which direction the I-95 lanes are pointing–no need to have to remember the schedule.
1995hoo: What is the address of the website which provides information regarding in which direction the HOT lanes are being operated?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 04, 2015, 03:27:27 PM
1995hoo: What is the address of the website which provides information regarding in which direction the HOT lanes are being operated?
Go to expresslanes.com and click the "On the Road Now" option (I think that's what it says) and the notation appears above the map.
Look at this morning around 9:30am for a "baseline" Sunday price. Seems that $5~ or so was the lower limit.
Fun Fact: One could have bypassed the ramps on the Springfield Interchange to get on I-95/495 for $1 from I-95 north at the giant flyover. Why anyone would do that? No clue.
Not many takers of the lanes this morning in general. Overall the I-95 corridor was pretty empty for once. It does seem that TransUrban is recouping their costs for the expanded southern half of the lanes with their pricing. $2 to travel from the beginning of the lanes to where the old HOV lanes began.
QuoteFun Fact: One could have bypassed the ramps on the Springfield Interchange to get on I-95/495 for $1 from I-95 north at the giant flyover. Why anyone would do that? No clue.
If there's an issue or backup on the flyover...which usually doesn't happen northbound but occasionally happens southbound.
Washington Post: Some practical tips about driving the new 95 Express Lanes in Virginia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/some-practical-tips-about-driving-the-new-95-express-lanes-in-virginia/2015/01/03/e979de78-9042-11e4-a412-4b735edc7175_story.html)
QuoteThe first week of tolling on the 95 Express Lanes was a good chance to test the new system, but drivers won't really begin to know how it's working until more commuters get back from their holidays.
QuoteStarting this month, we should learn some lessons about whether carpoolers are adapting to life with the E-ZPass Flex transponder and whether solo drivers are willing to pay the tolls. Watch also to see the effect on travel in the regular lanes of Interstate 95 in Northern Virginia.
It appears that enough people have stopped using the lanes in the morning since the changeover to tolls that mainline 95 is backing up very early at both Dale City exits.
Maybe not enough days have gone by to know this is a real effect but it has happened the 4 morning commutes I've had since last Monday...
Mapmikey
WTOP interviewed a driver waiting to pick up slugs who didn't have an E-ZPass (standard or Flex). I suspect there are a lot of drivers like that out there and that in a few weeks we will hear howls of outrage when they receive bills in the mail. I gather there was a big wreck in the local lanes in Newington, too, that may have prompted a lot of people to use the express lanes today.
Meanwhile, I see the late, unlamented ethanman62187 left a comment (using his real name) on one of Dr. Gridlock's latest blog entries about the I-95 lanes.
Edited to add: WTOP has a story (we heard it on the radio and now it's online) about a woman whose driver's license was suspended by the DMV because she's refusing to pay her toll bill. Naturally the media will try to paint her as sympathetic, but give the story a read. I find it hard to have a lot of sympathy for her because she's been wrong at every step of the process:
(1) She used the lanes without an E-ZPass (not stated in the story, but obvious given the facts).
(2) She got a bill in the mail and didn't pay.
(3) She failed to show up in court, so the judge entered a default judgment against her. (This is standard in ANY civil case, not just unpaid toll cases. If you fail to appear, you usually lose!)
(4) She negotiated a payment plan with the court due to the amount of money.
(5) She didn't make the monthly payment she negotiated. (At this point, that becomes borderline contempt of court.)
(6) She said she didn't pay because, in part, "I don't want to." (So you think that allows you to ignore a court order? That's REALLY stupid.)
(7) The COURT, not Transurban, ordered the DMV to suspend her license (the WTOP article quotes the statute).
http://wtop.com/traffic/2015/01/virginia-woman-loses-license-defaulting-10k-express-lane-tolls-fines/
QuoteMeanwhile, I see the late, unlamented ethanman62187 left a comment (using his real name) on one of Dr. Gridlock's latest blog entries about the I-95 lanes.
Are you sure they're one and the same? With 5M people in the metro area, likely PLENTY of Ethan's on the Post website.
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2015, 10:36:17 AM
QuoteMeanwhile, I see the late, unlamented ethanman62187 left a comment (using his real name) on one of Dr. Gridlock's latest blog entries about the I-95 lanes.
Are you sure they're one and the same? With 5M people in the metro area, likely PLENTY of Ethan's on the Post website.
Absolutely positive. Out of curiosity back when he was stirring up issues here, I did a Google search and found several comments from "Ethan Cua" referring to turning Route 28 into an Interstate highway, including one referring to I-366, and the same search turned up a Twitter account belonging to "@ethanman62187" under the name "Ethan Cua." Recall he was a high school kid. The Twitter account pretty clearly reflected a high school kid. I'm positive it's the same guy, though I have never met him personally and have no desire to do so.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2015, 07:54:41 AM
WTOP interviewed a driver waiting to pick up slugs who didn't have an E-ZPass (standard or Flex). I suspect there are a lot of drivers like that out there and that in a few weeks we will hear howls of outrage when they receive bills in the mail. I gather there was a big wreck in the local lanes in Newington, too, that may have prompted a lot of people to use the express lanes today.
Wreck avoidance/bypassing is (IMO) a legitimate way for the nice people at Transurban to rake in the dough, and I am pretty sure that they did.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2015, 07:54:41 AM
Meanwhile, I see the late, unlamented ethanman62187 left a comment (using his real name) on one of Dr. Gridlock's latest blog entries about the I-95 lanes.
Was he reporting in from Alanland? ;-)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2015, 07:54:41 AM
Edited to add: WTOP has a story (we heard it on the radio and now it's online) about a woman whose driver's license was suspended by the DMV because she's refusing to pay her toll bill. Naturally the media will try to paint her as sympathetic, but give the story a read. I find it hard to have a lot of sympathy for her because she's been wrong at every step of the process:
(1) She used the lanes without an E-ZPass (not stated in the story, but obvious given the facts).
(2) She got a bill in the mail and didn't pay.
(3) She failed to show up in court, so the judge entered a default judgment against her. (This is standard in ANY civil case, not just unpaid toll cases. If you fail to appear, you usually lose!)
(4) She negotiated a payment plan with the court due to the amount of money.
(5) She didn't make the monthly payment she negotiated. (At this point, that becomes borderline contempt of court.)
(6) She said she didn't pay because, in part, "I don't want to." (So you think that allows you to ignore a court order? That's REALLY stupid.)
(7) The COURT, not Transurban, ordered the DMV to suspend her license (the WTOP article quotes the statute).
http://wtop.com/traffic/2015/01/virginia-woman-loses-license-defaulting-10k-express-lane-tolls-fines/
Personification of stupidity?
Does Virginia have so-called "consent judgements" in civil cases? My HOA [in Maryland] sometimes negotiates those with owners who fail to pay assessments (with our Association attorney, because we are a corporation), though I have signed more than a few as an HOA officer. Cheaper than having to get a judgement in District Court (about the same as the system of General District Courts in the Commonwealth).
Sounds like this person deserves what she had coming to her.
But - I do think there should be some sort of a limit on how much an unpaid civil debt can be increased by efforts to collect same (including going to court). Not sure what that limit should be (and lawyers do have to eat, and they are not especially inexpensive).
There have been several news stories that implied that Transurban could function as prosecutor and judge in these sorts of cases, which is obviously incorrect.
Quote from: WTOP storyNeither state is permitted to take action against the license or registration of someone living in another state.
IMO, this needs to change. If a Maryland driver fails to pay tolls on a toll road in Virginia, then they should eventually get hit with a license suspension, and vice versa.
Virginia does indeed have consent judgments. Essentially, any time you settle a case and ask the court to memorialize the settlement in a court order, it's a consent judgment. It's useful for the person "winning" because it makes it easier to enforce the settlement agreement–you simply ask the court to enforce its own order, whereas if the parties sign a settlement agreement but don't get a court order other than having the case dismissed, enforcing the settlement requires you to sue the other party for breach of contract.
Typically a "consent judgment" that results from out-of-court procedures without a lawsuit ever having been filed is a "confession of judgment" rather than a consent judgment. What basically happens is you say "I agree to pay $x on the following terms, and if I fail to do so, the other party may ask a court to enter judgment against me for the entire remaining unpaid balance and the court may do so without awaiting my appearance." Someone approached me last year asking for help on a matter in which she had signed a confession of judgment arising from unpaid commercial rent. Unfortunately, I couldn't help her. If you confess judgment and you are then unable to pay, you're going to find yourself in a tough situation if the other person refuses to renegotiate. (Often confessed-judgment promissory notes will be used by lenders with people who have spotty credit history or who are renegotiating a debt due to changed financial circumstances. For example, you fail to pay a loan because you can't afford the payments. Rather than writing it off, they negotiate a payment plan. The document memorializing the payment plan may include a confession of judgment because they want the right to get a court order against you if you default a second time.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2015, 12:14:44 PM
Virginia does indeed have consent judgments. Essentially, any time you settle a case and ask the court to memorialize the settlement in a court order, it's a consent judgment. It's useful for the person "winning" because it makes it easier to enforce the settlement agreement–you simply ask the court to enforce its own order, whereas if the parties sign a settlement agreement but don't get a court order other than having the case dismissed, enforcing the settlement requires you to sue the other party for breach of contract.
Typically a "consent judgment" that results from out-of-court procedures without a lawsuit ever having been filed is a "confession of judgment" rather than a consent judgment. What basically happens is you say "I agree to pay $x on the following terms, and if I fail to do so, the other party may ask a court to enter judgment against me for the entire remaining unpaid balance and the court may do so without awaiting my appearance." Someone approached me last year asking for help on a matter in which she had signed a confession of judgment arising from unpaid commercial rent. Unfortunately, I couldn't help her. If you confess judgment and you are then unable to pay, you're going to find yourself in a tough situation if the other person refuses to renegotiate. (Often confessed-judgment promissory notes will be used by lenders with people who have spotty credit history or who are renegotiating a debt due to changed financial circumstances. For example, you fail to pay a loan because you can't afford the payments. Rather than writing it off, they negotiate a payment plan. The document memorializing the payment plan may include a confession of judgment because they want the right to get a court order against you if you default a second time.)
Sounds identical or almost identical to the way that it is done in Maryland.
The commenters on that post share the concern I had about HOT pricing, mostly that its on a whim. Technically the price shouldn't go up until free flowing conditions at the threshold speed of 45mph cease at which the principal of demand destruction via tolls would be applied.
Off peak pricing is another area where there can be improvement. Slashing prices further (below the "break even" amount that the base minimum tolls likely reflect) during low traffic periods would generate some more toll income. No traffic in the lanes = no money being made. There are still fixed base costs outside of wear and tear that still need to be paid for like winter storm treatment/plowing and police patrol. Those lanes were a ghost town yesterday morning compared to when they were free to travel.
The other concern about turning over publicly funded/built roadways to private entities came up too.
QuoteTechnically the price shouldn't go up until free flowing conditions at the threshold speed of 45mph cease at which the principal of demand destruction via tolls would be applied.
Problem here is, if you wait until "free flowing conditions at 45mph cease", then it is too late. If the goal is to keep traffic at or above 45 MPH, you don't wait until you drop below to bump the toll up.
Channel 5 aired what Ms1995hoo and I thought was a very slanted anti-Transurban report on the 10:00 News tonight; it ended with the anchorman (I don't know his name) calling the HO/T lanes a scam and saying he refuses to use them. See link below.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/27766961/defense-attorney-unveils-strategy-to-challenge-huge-e-zpass-express-lane-fines
No doubt there are some people who just screw up, but you have to screw up really severely to wind up in this situation. Assume, for discussion purposes, you don't know your E-ZPass battery is dead and you run up six trips in three days. Since you don't know your battery is dead, you don't pay online within five days when the service charge is only $1.50.
That means you get a bill in the mail for the tolls plus $12.50 per trip (in this example, that means tolls plus $75). Seems to me that would get the average person's attention very quickly.
If you fail to pay the initial invoice, the fees increase to $25 per trip (in this example, that means $150 on top of the tolls). Again, I don't see how anyone could be so foolish as to ignore the invoice.
If you still don't pay, they refer it to a debt collection agency. That, of course, means additional fees on top of the ones already imposed. Understandably, state law lets Transurban pass on those fees to the person whose nonpayment caused them to incur the fees in the first place.
If debt collection goes nowhere in six months, they take you to court.
The attorney Channel 5 quoted talks a lot about criminal law and constitutional issues. I'm not sure his argument will work because under state law, the fees are deemed civil penalties, not criminal fines, and the summons shown on TV was a civil pleading (a warrant in debt, which is a standard form used in general district court). Of course, he can try to convince a judge the matter is actually criminal, but it's unclear whether he'd succeed.
There IS certainly a valid question as to why Transurban proceeds this way instead of querying the E-ZPass database. I have all three of our plate numbers registered on my E-ZPass account, for example, so if my battery were dead, it'd be simple enough for them to get the correct account number and simply bill that account. I don't know why they don't do it that way, but I assume it has something to do with the idea of requiring E-ZPass and not allowing a "toll-by-plate" option like on Florida's Turnpike in the Miami are.
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2015, 10:23:02 PM
QuoteTechnically the price shouldn't go up until free flowing conditions at the threshold speed of 45mph cease at which the principal of demand destruction via tolls would be applied.
Problem here is, if you wait until "free flowing conditions at 45mph cease", then it is too late. If the goal is to keep traffic at or above 45 MPH, you don't wait until you drop below to bump the toll up.
Absolutely correct.
45 MPH on a freeway implies level-of-service "E," which is uncomfortably close to LOS "F," at which point performance falls of the edge.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2015, 11:08:04 PM
Channel 5 aired what Ms1995hoo and I thought was a very slanted anti-Transurban report on the 10:00 News tonight; it ended with the anchorman (I don't know his name) calling the HO/T lanes a scam and saying he refuses to use them. See link below.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/27766961/defense-attorney-unveils-strategy-to-challenge-huge-e-zpass-express-lane-fines
I am no fan of that television station or its network.
But I also think Transurban is being
very foolish (in a public relations context) at this point, just having started toll operations along I-95, and the I-495 lanes relatively new.
From the WTOP article:
Step 1:
QuoteIf you, like Luis, get hit with a summons, that is your red flag for step one: hire a lawyer to go to court on your behalf.
Uh-huh. Lawyers appear to be the winners here in step one.
As for the other steps: My understanding is civil courts require less evidence than criminal courts. A criminal court requires one to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil court just needs to imply guilt. So most of the other steps, which include pleading the 5th and telling the court you weren't the registered driver, probably won't work.
Variable speed limits were still set at 65 even though the lanes were all but covered in snow this morning. Anything faster than 35 felt unsafe to me.
Conditions in the 95 and 495 express lanes varied widely compared to their respective mainlines. Some of it was due to fewer cars making a path in the toll lanes which was more prevalent on 495. 95 toll lanes had more action...there were 3 wrecks on mainline 95 to avoid...
Mapmikey
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 06, 2015, 06:27:00 AM
From the WTOP article:
Step 1: QuoteIf you, like Luis, get hit with a summons, that is your red flag for step one: hire a lawyer to go to court on your behalf.
Uh-huh. Lawyers appear to be the winners here in step one.
As for the other steps: My understanding is civil courts require less evidence than criminal courts. A criminal court requires one to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil court just needs to imply guilt. So most of the other steps, which include pleading the 5th and telling the court you weren't the registered driver, probably won't work.
Correct. Pleading the Fifth in a criminal case is a protection. The court is not allowed to hold it against you. That's not true in a civil case–the court (or jury if there is one) is entitled to presume an adverse inference from your refusal to testify in a civil proceeding.
After I posted last night, it occurred to me it's all the more obvious that these are civil cases because it's Transurban bringing the court action. In a criminal case, it's the Commonwealth that prosecutes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2015, 11:08:04 PM
The attorney Channel 5 quoted talks a lot about criminal law and constitutional issues. I'm not sure his argument will work because under state law, the fees are deemed civil penalties, not criminal fines, and the summons shown on TV was a civil pleading (a warrant in debt, which is a standard form used in general district court). Of course, he can try to convince a judge the matter is actually criminal, but it's unclear whether he'd succeed.
And that would not go well.
In a civil case, this would be a traffic violation. if you lose, it's a mark on your driving record. Pay a fine. Matter is closed.
In a criminal case, one would need to be prosecuted under something along the lines of theft of goods or services. if you lose, it's a mark on your permanent record. Depending on your employer, you have to disclose to your employer you've been convicted. You have to disclose to future employers on applications your conviction. In some jobs, a criminal conviction bars you from employment. Nearly all criminal convictions allow for some sort of jail time, which may be suspended on the condition of probation - in this case that you don't, even by accident, go thru an EZ Pass lane again for a period of time.
Of course, a lawyer would make a lot more money too trying to defend a criminal case.
Civil courts are kangaroo courts in many cases, but the alternative is probably a lot worse!
There have been reports early on noting that Transurban was setting a single toll rate at the lanes' northern end. A guy with the username "sneedel" who comments on Dr. Gridlock's blog had noted the signs were listing $1.00 from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway to either the Beltway or Turkeycock.
Not the same today in the snow. I drove over to the Springfield Metro this morning and the signs were advertising $1.65 to the Beltway and $2.10 to Turkeycock. Given the massive traffic jams everywhere (Van Dorn was backed up through and beyond Kingstowne), I'd have expected a higher toll. A higher toll would also have helped manage congestion at the point where the non-HOVs have to exit.
WTOP Radio show with people from Transurban (
recorded audio): WTOP's traffic team and Transurban officials were in the Glass Enclosed Nerve Center taking your calls and questions about the 95 Express Lanes on Monday, Jan. 5. (http://liveblogwp.wtop.com/Event/Ask_The_Traffic_Experts)
QuoteWTOP's veteran traffic reporter Bob Marbourg, WTOP Sprawl and Crawl reporter Ari Ashe were joined by Pierce Coffee and Mike McGurk of Transurban, which operates the 495 and 95 express lanes, to answer your questions about the new express lanes on Monday, Jan. 5, 2015.
How does one test the battery in one's E-Z Pass?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 06, 2015, 11:38:40 AM
How does one test the battery in one's E-Z Pass?
I make a point of driving through a conventional toll plaza every so often to ensure the green light, or other appropriate indicator as used by a given agency, turns on. That's the only way I know of. The possibility of a dead battery is the one thing that concerns me about open-road tolling systems using E-ZPass because the transponder is battery-powered but gives no feedback to tell you it was read (compare to the SunPass Mini, which also gives no feedback but is not battery-powered).
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 06, 2015, 11:38:40 AM
How does one test the battery in one's E-Z Pass?
I make a point of driving through a conventional toll plaza every so often to ensure the green light, or other appropriate indicator as used by a given agency, turns on. That's the only way I know of. The possibility of a dead battery is the one thing that concerns me about open-road tolling systems using E-ZPass because the transponder is battery-powered but gives no feedback to tell you it was read (compare to the SunPass Mini, which also gives no feedback but is not battery-powered).
Though if the battery starts to fail, and you have registered your vehicle with the entity that issued you the transponder, then you should not have any financial penalty.
Using the Dulles Toll Road (even the E-ZPass only lanes) is a good way to get feedback that your transponder is still functioning correctly.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 06, 2015, 11:49:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 06, 2015, 11:38:40 AM
How does one test the battery in one's E-Z Pass?
I make a point of driving through a conventional toll plaza every so often to ensure the green light, or other appropriate indicator as used by a given agency, turns on. That's the only way I know of. The possibility of a dead battery is the one thing that concerns me about open-road tolling systems using E-ZPass because the transponder is battery-powered but gives no feedback to tell you it was read (compare to the SunPass Mini, which also gives no feedback but is not battery-powered).
Though if the battery starts to fail, and you have registered your vehicle with the entity that issued you the transponder, then you should not have any financial penalty.
Using the Dulles Toll Road (even the E-ZPass only lanes) is a good way to get feedback that your transponder is still functioning correctly.
The legitimate concern is that by all accounts this may not be true if you drive on Virginia's HO/T lanes because once you get that invoice in the mail, you get nailed for the $12.50 fee. The HO/T lanes are not operated by VDOT and Transurban apparently does not query the E-ZPass database to determine whether your account should be billed, although I know they now have this "first-time forgiveness" program.
I pulled up that WTOP broadcast from yesterday you linked further up the thread. Thanks for posting it. Of course this is not your fault, but an 83-minute audio program with no transcript? I'd be interested in what they had to say, but 83 minutes of audio is awfully lengthy. I wish they'd post a transcript.
It probably depends on the authority.
When the NJ EZ Passes started failing after about 4 - 5 years or so, once they realized the issues - motorists that normally had no problems with EZ Pass started getting numerous no-reads - they went on the offensive and mailed everyone new EZ Passes, instructing the holder to mail back their old passes. Everything was postage paid and no one incurred any costs.
The newer EZ Passes also had a longer battery life - the estimated battery life was 7 years, but I'm thinking the majority of them are going on 10 years without issue.
Other agencies may say you're responsible for getting a new EZ Pass, including any costs associated with the tags.
This is also one of the reasons why it's important to keep your license plate info updated. The no-reads will be tracked to your license plate number, and your account updated usually without penalty. As for Transurban, if there's enough mis-reads, they may have to change their policy if they don't review tag numbers first (if enough people bug their elected officials, of course).
According to the Toll Roads News' front page, Newport, CA had no issues with VA's I-95 Express Lanes. :spin:
Scroll down to December 30th... http://tollroadsnews.com/
Sometimes, punctuation is important.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
The legitimate concern is that by all accounts this may not be true if you drive on Virginia's HO/T lanes because once you get that invoice in the mail, you get nailed for the $12.50 fee. The HO/T lanes are not operated by VDOT and Transurban apparently does not query the E-ZPass database to determine whether your account should be billed, although I know they now have this "first-time forgiveness" program.
Does the E-ZPass IAG agreement cover this issue? It seems billing to plate on file during no-reads if it matches the photo is the "standard procedure" for most agencies. If its part of the agreement for joining the IAG and accepting E-ZPass, than TransUrban is going to have to follow it. If not, perhaps the IAG needs to step in and clarify the procedures. The whole point of having the IAG is consistency and that includes policies and procedures.
One shouldn't be punished if the reader and/or tag randomly glitches out. TransUrban just needs to consider the uproar it caused in NJ/NY a few years back when electronic tolling was becoming mainstream. The ALPR read rate is good enough now that many of the misread transactions can occur without a person reviewing it if the plate photo matches what is on file in the E-ZPass database.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2015, 04:28:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
The legitimate concern is that by all accounts this may not be true if you drive on Virginia's HO/T lanes because once you get that invoice in the mail, you get nailed for the $12.50 fee. The HO/T lanes are not operated by VDOT and Transurban apparently does not query the E-ZPass database to determine whether your account should be billed, although I know they now have this "first-time forgiveness" program.
Does the E-ZPass IAG agreement cover this issue? It seems billing to plate on file during no-reads if it matches the photo is the "standard procedure" for most agencies. If its part of the agreement for joining the IAG and accepting E-ZPass, than TransUrban is going to have to follow it. If not, perhaps the IAG needs to step in and clarify the procedures. The whole point of having the IAG is consistency and that includes policies and procedures.
One shouldn't be punished if the reader and/or tag randomly glitches out. TransUrban just needs to consider the uproar it caused in NJ/NY a few years back when electronic tolling was becoming mainstream. The ALPR read rate is good enough now that many of the misread transactions can occur without a person reviewing it if the plate photo matches what is on file in the E-ZPass database.
I have no idea what the agreement says or how Transurban participates (that is, I don't know whether they're a member as a part of VDOT's membership or via some other means). mtantillo might know.
As a general matter, I agree with everything you say in this comment.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 04:50:20 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2015, 04:28:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
The legitimate concern is that by all accounts this may not be true if you drive on Virginia's HO/T lanes because once you get that invoice in the mail, you get nailed for the $12.50 fee. The HO/T lanes are not operated by VDOT and Transurban apparently does not query the E-ZPass database to determine whether your account should be billed, although I know they now have this "first-time forgiveness" program.
Does the E-ZPass IAG agreement cover this issue? It seems billing to plate on file during no-reads if it matches the photo is the "standard procedure" for most agencies. If its part of the agreement for joining the IAG and accepting E-ZPass, than TransUrban is going to have to follow it. If not, perhaps the IAG needs to step in and clarify the procedures. The whole point of having the IAG is consistency and that includes policies and procedures.
One shouldn't be punished if the reader and/or tag randomly glitches out. TransUrban just needs to consider the uproar it caused in NJ/NY a few years back when electronic tolling was becoming mainstream. The ALPR read rate is good enough now that many of the misread transactions can occur without a person reviewing it if the plate photo matches what is on file in the E-ZPass database.
I have no idea what the agreement says or how Transurban participates (that is, I don't know whether they're a member as a part of VDOT's membership or via some other means). mtantillo might know.
As a general matter, I agree with everything you say in this comment.
I know ever since Maryland switched to video tolling, they assume that all "no-reads" are people wanting to pay video tolls, so they mail you the invoice for the tolls at the video rate (150% the regular rate). If you have an E-ZPass, you would have to contest the video toll thing. I think in a lot of states, if you mis-read in-state, they have your info on file. But if you mis-read out of state, then MA E-ZPass won't know that your license plate is on a NY E-ZPass account, so they'll send you an invoice, which you contest with your E-ZPass transponder number.
This is very much unlike Florida where my parents drove through many SunPass lanes, but I had forgotten to give them the transponder. The license plate was on the account and all the tolls posted properly at the transponder rate, but as "video tolls". They even attached JPG's of the photos.
Dr. Gridlock's blog has a post about this morning's Metrorail woes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/01/07/delays-on-some-metro-rail-lines-wednesday-morning/) that has given rise to a discussion of the I-95 express lanes.
First comment about them (boldface added to note the important part):
QuoteKBlit
9:48 AM EST
During yesterday's worse traffic than the last time there was worse traffic the I-95 toll lanes were virtually empty. The non pay 95 was clogged with traffic. I am sure that the operators will not release actual useage data but drivers have at least for now said no to be extorted by the 'bait and switch' toll operation. Why is it, except to not scare off users, does the billion dollar road scam refuse to post the actual end-to-end cost? As I understand it if the toll operation does not make its revenue the taxpayer makes up the difference.
I replied as follows. Tell me if I missed something here.
Quote1995hoo
10:03 AM EST
There is no "actual end-to-end cost" at any given point because you do not lock in the rate to the far end when you enter the lanes. That is, say you enter via the ramp from the Horner Road slug lot at the Prince William Parkway interchange. You've locked in the toll rate to the flyover ramp back to the local lanes just north of Newington (denoted as "95-644" on the signs).
As you approach that flyover ramp, there is a separate toll rate schedule displayed for the remaining exits. You then decide if you want to pay that rate or exit into the local lanes. You will not lock in the toll rate for that segment until you pass under its first toll gantry.
This means it is impossible for there to be an "end-to-end cost" displayed when you enter down at Horner Road. It's about eight miles from there to Newington. Suppose, just for simplicity's sake, it takes eight minutes for you to drive that distance (that's 60 mph; most drivers would be going faster, but it's easier to estimate time at 60 mph). In those eight minutes, the toll for the northern segment may change before you get there.
Bear in mind there are seven entry points for the northbound express lanes to the north of Horner Road (Route 123, US-1, slip ramp south of Newington, Franconia-Springfield Parkway, slip ramp in Springfield, Route 644, and the Beltway). So there could be lots more traffic entering the lanes further north, say if there's a big wreck out in the mainline or some such. In theory, using the segment-based tolling gives them more flexibility to manage the lanes by adjusting the pricing upwards for the areas where there is, or may be, more traffic using the lanes while leaving the pricing lower for areas where there are fewer vehicles entering.
This all reflects how a big difference between the I-495 and I-95 lanes is that the I-95 lanes have midstream exit/entry points to/from the local lanes, whereas the I-495 lanes don't. So you can't do "segments" on I-495.
The guy to whom I responded is apparently just stubborn. His reply, again with boldface added:
QuoteKBlit
10:22 AM EST
Got news for you in the business world that is called 'bait and switch.' All you need to do is display the end-to-end for that moment. That is neither rocket science nor beyond the capibilities of today's tech. You already see drivers, the actual paying ones, doing the weave to avoid paying until the last minute. Anyway actual paying versus users is misleading as only those who pay should counted as the 3 (+)'s do not and during a rush that is the bulk. But I suspect the taxpayer will get the make up costs. How of the Richmond crowd who voted for this deal now work for the contractor?
Either he simply doesn't understand it or he's just stubborn and refusing to listen. I suspect the latter, given his earlier use of the propaganda phrase "billion dollar road scam." That sort of thing is a pretty clear indicator the person is just going to rant. But for some reason, I responded anyway:
Quote1995hoo
10:43 AM EST
It's not called "bait-and-switch" at all. If the sign says "95-644" and you're headed to "395-236," it's simply not reasonable for you to think the toll rate you see on the first sign is for the full length of the lanes.
I know it's trendy in today's America to want to blame everyone else if you don't understand or don't like something, but people have to take some personal responsibility for learning how things work, and in this case that means learning what the signs mean.
You keep talking about "the end-to-end for that moment." THERE IS NO SUCH THING and it's time you stopped pretending there is. You're thinking of it as though it's the Beltway. On the Beltway, you lock in ALL the potential toll rates when you pass under that first gantry. If you're coming from Springfield and it's $12.00 to the lanes' northern end, you lock in $12.00 when you pass under the gantry just south of Braddock, regardless of whether the rate then goes up (or down!) for drivers entering while you're in the lanes.
I-95 DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. The rate for the northern segment can, and often will, change while you're already in the southern segment. If, when you entered at Horner Road, the sign showed a rate of, I don't know, $2.35 to "95-644" and $6.45 to "395-236," but then when you reached the "95-644" point the sign then said it would be $5.00 for you to continue to "395-236," THAT would be a bait-and-switch because you would have reasonably thought you locked in the $6.45 total toll and now they're telling you it's $7.35 total.
Instead, the signs further south do not show the rate for the northern segment because that rate is unknown until you approach that segment. There's no "bait-and-switch" about it. The sign tells you the toll to "95-644." That is what you pay if you enter at that time. A second sign then tells you the toll to "395-236" and you decide whether to pay it.
This discussion is why I kept nagging Dr. Gridlock to devote column space to the segment-based tolling!
Mike, cpzilliacus, am I missing anything in my comments above?
I knew the segment thing was going to cause no end of confusion and hand-wringing out there.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2015, 10:49:37 AM
QuoteKBlit
10:22 AM EST
Got news for you in the business world that is called 'bait and switch.' All you need to do is display the end-to-end for that moment. That is neither rocket science nor beyond the capibilities of today's tech.
Actually, what he is proposing is classic bait-and-switch. If he were to get on the tolled lanes when the price said "$5.00", and later it was raised to $7.00, he'd be complaining that he already entered the road and it should have remained $5 for him. I'm quite sure that if he was charged $7, he wouldn't care what it said "for that moment", and would be complaining about this additional bait-and-switch tactic.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2015, 10:49:37 AM
Mike, cpzilliacus, am I missing anything in my comments above?
I knew the segment thing was going to cause no end of confusion and hand-wringing out there.
I think you covered it accurately and well.
I dislike the segment-based tolling with a passion -
except - that it may prove to have merit when the 95 Express lanes are pointed south, to avoid the congested mess in Stafford County where everything narrows from 2 lanes to 1 lane.
Though I concede the same could perhaps be said about the 495 Express Lanes approaching their north terminus north of Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2015, 11:00:43 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2015, 10:49:37 AM
QuoteKBlit
10:22 AM EST
Got news for you in the business world that is called 'bait and switch.' All you need to do is display the end-to-end for that moment. That is neither rocket science nor beyond the capibilities of today's tech.
Actually, what he is proposing is classic bait-and-switch. If he were to get on the tolled lanes when the price said "$5.00", and later it was raised to $7.00, he'd be complaining that he already entered the road and it should have remained $5 for him. I'm quite sure that if he was charged $7, he wouldn't care what it said "for that moment", and would be complaining about this additional bait-and-switch tactic.
Notice that's what I said in my reply. He has not replied further (yet).
If the system worked the way you theorize in your post, I'd agree it's confusing for the average driver and could be seen as a "bait-and-switch." That's why I think it's good it doesn't work that way, even if the "segment" system may also be confusing. In my view, if the sign shows a toll rate to a specific point and you are charged that toll rate, then you have no basis for complaint, even if you find it confusing that they then charge a different rate for the next stretch of road. That's far preferable to displaying a toll rate that is subject to change once you're already on the road. That would be misleading and far more confusing.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2015, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2015, 10:49:37 AM
Mike, cpzilliacus, am I missing anything in my comments above?
I knew the segment thing was going to cause no end of confusion and hand-wringing out there.
I think you covered it accurately and well.
I dislike the segment-based tolling with a passion - except - that it may prove to have merit when the 95 Express lanes are pointed south, to avoid the congested mess in Stafford County where everything narrows from 2 lanes to 1 lane.
Though I concede the same could perhaps be said about the 495 Express Lanes approaching their north terminus north of Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road).
The difference, of course, is that on I-95 you can bail out to the mainline just north of Triangle, whereas at the Beltway lanes' northern end your only alternative is to exit the Beltway completely to the local streets in Tysons or the Dulles Toll Road.
Depending on how they manage the tolls, the segment-based tolling
could have the benefit of managing the traffic at Turkeycock when the lanes are pointed north. Whether that happens in practice is something only time will tell.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2015, 11:09:35 AM
I dislike the segment-based tolling with a passion - except - that it may prove to have merit when the 95 Express lanes are pointed south, to avoid the congested mess in Stafford County where everything narrows from 2 lanes to 1 lane.
Still a small sample size (5 commutes), but this dynamic has yet to happen to me. The express lanes narrow to 1 lane and head through the flyover at 45 mph (about as fast as the 30 mph posted curve can be easily done).
The flaw in stubborn guy's argument is this: Yes an end-to-end price could be shown, but that means Transurban would have to lock you into that rate for the far northern segment from 25 miles away. But because of the distance and traffic pattern changes on the other end, you couldn't accurately manage the congestion on the northern segment with the pricing. Well earlier in this thread I tried comparing this to trying to do it on the Penna Tpk and how it couldn't be done as one segment in a congestion pricing system because of how far the other end is. It's the same with I-95. It is wholly dependent on the number of opportunities there are to get in/out of the lanes and if that is available throughout your toll road, the distance you can do congestion pricing as 1 segment for the whole thing is pretty short.
Mapmikey
Good explanation. If he responds further, I may borrow that.
It's definitely a different system than what we are generally used to, regardless if someone has ever utilized a variable priced highway. It would be nice if they were able to state: "Enter now, and you're guaranteed this price". They probably could have. If there was an issue that caused traffic to congest, they could jump up the price for later entrance points to discourage motorists from entering the tolled lanes at those points.
There are certainly other pricing options out there that may have been or will be considered. If it becomes an issue where motorists see a higher price for the next segment(s) of road, resulting in them making last second decisions and causing accidents trying to exit the tolled lanes, they may have to revisit how the pricing structure works. But for now, traffic is getting used to how they are going to utilize the road. Some people are going to make a habit of entering the lanes for a while, then exiting. Others will stay out of the lanes to save money, but at a point where the general-use lanes congest, they'll enter the tolled lanes at that point. This is more of an experimentation unlike what we've experienced in the country with fixed and variable priced toll lanes, so it'll take some time to see how the public responds.
Good points. The tolling only started last Monday, December 29, so it's been six seven business days (counting today), of which four had very light Christmastime traffic. It's not reasonable for people to try to make definitive conclusions about the new system that quickly. It's not surprising they do that, though. Same thing happened when the Beltway lanes opened and there were a spate of crashes within the first four days due to irresponsible drivers. The "woe-is-me" handwringer crowd were quick to condemn the lanes as fatally flawed, but the uproar died down within a week.
(Edit seen with the strikeout. I got confused as to what day of the week today is.)
Took my first express lane trip in the toll-era today. Crossed the Potomac at 5:20. Entered the reversible lanes at Duke street around 5:45. Exited the Express Lanes in Gatrisonville at about 6:10. Crossed the Rappahannock at 6:25. Tolls were $2.55 to Backlick, then $5.55 to Dale, then $3.65 to Garrisonville. So total was $11.75. Doing the math while driving definitely is a distraction!
Obviously, biggest complaint was having to wait until Duke to enter. But once I was in them I was flying at some points at maximum (non-misdemeanor) speed...79. There was basically no delay at the southern end. A minor stop/go at the Rappahannock. I was bypassing some serious traffic near the Occaquan. But if I was closely watching traffic on my phone, I would have probably not entered until after Springfield (the mainline delay cleared near Edsal). Then sailed past traffic from FFX Co Parkway to Occaquan, and bailed at Dale, because there were only very minor delays at the south end in the mainline. That would have only cost me $5.15.
I did see several vehicles in the lanes that didn't belong. A tractor trailer was pulled over by VSP. And then there was a U-Haul towing a trailer with a car on it (4 axles). c'mon people, read the signs! Both vehicles seemed hazardous as they were going much slower than the regular speed of traffic.
I also saw a decent number of vehicles from NY and PA in the lanes.
Overall good experience. Much better than the free trial when the lanes were jammed.
Vehicles with trailers were still using the lanes on the 27th before tolls kicked in. I was stuck behind one at the southern end crossing the flyover. Coming back on the 4th I didn't see any VSP patrols at all on the lanes. I did see some out of state plates entering though. I wonder if they'll be surprised when they look at the E-ZPass bill. The regular lanes weren't busy at all and moving at well above the speed limit.
One weird thing on the 27th. WTOP was reporting that southbound I-95 at Franconia-Springfield Parkway had serious delays due to late running construction closures, particularly on the giant Springfield Interchange flyover. Not once during the report did they mention the express lanes as an alternate or even mention the direction they were operating in. I found the latter odd as they have mentioned the operating direction in the past.
Major Fail!
Gates on the express lanes were frozen and had to be opened manually. Even with opening time at 2 a.m. they were not able to open them fully until nearly 6.
Part of the reason for how long it took to do it manually is that all the ramps now have 10-16 gates each...
Mainline 95 from Dumfries to Woodbridge does not do well at all when the lanes are closed for whatever reason...a little better north of VA 123.
Mapmikey
We used them southbound from the Beltway to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway last night during the old HOV hours. I picked up my wife at her office after yesterday morning's Metro debacle resulted in her hitchhiking from Arlington Cemetery to her office and we took Mike's suggested route of I-66 west (HOV-2) to the Beltway HO/T lanes. Then, to avoid slow Van Dorn, I decided to try the new option we didn't have before. The light at the top of the ramp to the Parkway feels interminably long. We got there just as it turned red. But it still only took 31 minutes door-to-door. (Beltway toll $5.55, not sure what the I-95 toll was.) Saved at least half an hour compared to the other routes.
I may use the same route in reverse this morning.
I just came back down I-395 from DC. I suppose this was to be expected:
As I passed Turkeycock at about 8:53 AM, I glanced left into the northbound express lanes at their terminus. About six or seven SOVs all stopped on the gore area for the flyover back to the local lanes with their hazard flashers on. One was so brazen he was reading the paper. You guessed it–they were obviously waiting for 9:00 AM when HOV ends, just like people do at the Pentagon. I think this is arguably more dangerous than near the Pentagon because they were stopped on the gore area rather than on a shoulder, meaning you get traffic going by on either side.
I'll see later today whether the camera picked them up. Between sun glare and the location, I kind of doubt it.
Perhaps VSP should station a patrol vehicle there during the 8:50-9am timeframe. That'll cut it down.
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2015, 09:38:36 AM
Perhaps VSP should station a patrol vehicle there during the 8:50-9am timeframe. That'll cut it down.
I agree, and I think it probably needs to be parked there ahead of time because I've often seen what happens near the Pentagon when a police cruiser appears during the "shoulder-waiting" period: The shoulder-waiters bomb out into traffic with little regard to anyone's safety, causing near-misses and swerving, because all they care about is avoiding the ticket. If the cop is there ahead of time, the "gore-stoppers" won't have the opportunity to race out into traffic.
Edited to add: Here's a somewhat grainy video capture with the gore-stoppers circled. It's a bit hard to see. They all had their flashers on. (My camera's time-stamp is a few minutes off, BTW. The clock in the car, which gets the time from a GPS satellite, said 8:53.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FExpresslanegore-stoppers_zps01cf800c.png&hash=b34bcbd9258a90609eb2cc02db35de174ced3cd7)
Just tell the cop your car broke down.
Quote from: mtantillo on January 08, 2015, 06:48:24 PM
Just tell the cop your car broke down.
In law school we called that the laugh test–the argument isn't believable if you can't say it with a straight face.
My wife made an interesting point about the tolls tonight. If she drives to work, it's probably 45 minutes to an hour plus $10 to park (setting aside the cost of gas and depreciation). If she drives to the Metro, it's 45 minutes to an hour IF the trains run reliably (a massive IF), the train fare is $5.40 each way and the parking is $4.85, so the total is $15.65 (not counting gas and depreciation). If I drive her to the Metro, it's $10.80 and the time is about the same, maybe a bit less since she need not find parking.
Viewed in that respect, if I drive her via the Beltway HO/T lanes and I-66, the rush hour toll of $5 to $6 isn't as much as it sounds because the cost is comparable to the other options and the trip is a lot faster (tonight I picked her up and we got home in half an hour going 65 to 70 mph most of the way). Considering what a debacle the Metrorail has been this week, that shorter trip is a good tradeoff right now. Of course there is the time it takes me to drive to her office (20 minutes today), so if the Metro were running reliably the cost/benefit consideration might be different, but the Metro has been a disaster this week. Yesterday she wound up hitchiking from Arlington on Cemetery to her office! I REALLY don't want my wife hitchiking! (Slugging would be different.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2015, 08:43:37 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on January 08, 2015, 06:48:24 PM
Just tell the cop your car broke down.
In law school we called that the laugh test–--the argument isn't believable if you can't say it with a straight face.
I'm sure many people around here could lie through their teeth and still pass that test.
Offering to call for a tow truck -- or occasionally stationing one near the gore point, ready to haul away "broken down" vehicles, or a VDOT safety patrol vehicle with someone who can diagnose alleged breakdowns -- might be needed to ratchet up the test. If the cops could sometimes hold "broken down" vehicles until the safety patrol could come by and confirm that they were safe to drive, that might also promote honesty.
On the Beltway they have those "Express Assist" trucks in the cutouts near some of the gantries. Don't know if that's also true on I-95, but if it is, they could put one of those there.
Dr. Gridlock and I tweeted them about it and they said they'll look into it, so we'll see....
Express assist is on 95 too, they park on the unused ramps (for example, the NB Express Turkeycock ramp is where one truck parks when the lanes are SB).
Quote from: mtantillo on January 08, 2015, 10:42:59 PM
Express assist is on 95 too, they park on the unused ramps (for example, the NB Express Turkeycock ramp is where one truck parks when the lanes are SB).
They could probably park it somewhere in the blocked-off ramp area southbound traffic uses to enter in the afternoons, then.
Dr. Gridlock once pointed out that the Beltway express lanes are probably THE most closely-monitored stretch of highway this area of the country has ever seen. I assume that will also apply to the I-95 lanes. Hopefully it's apply more so given the lack of shoulders. Incidentally, last night when I drove into DC to pick up my wife there was an incident (don't want to say "a wreck" because I couldn't see well enough) in the right express lane just south of Turkeycock. I had to see most of it in my mirrors since I was going northbound. The assist team had two big flashing-arrow boards set up in advance of the incident and the red "X" was illuminated over that lane. Looked like they were handling it quite well. Traffic still slowed down way more than was probably needed, of course–especially for that spot, because you're coming out of the two-lane HOV facility and it'd be easy for traffic to maintain a column of twos past the incident. I suppose you do have merging traffic from the mainline there, of course, and those people would have to slam on the brakes. I'm still wary of the lack of a full shoulder on either side of the three-lane portion of the express lanes, but the use of the large flashing-arrow boards was a good step because I think the average driver will notice those more than the red "X" overhead (and we've all seen on I-66 how well some people obey the red "X" anyway).
Those emergency service patrol vehicles are there to assist people for minor issues. If the driver isn't aware of what the minor issue is, a tow truck should be called pronto and the vehicle towed away.
If the car is on the shoulder still running with the driver reading a newspaper, that sounds like the car isn't driveable and the driver is waiting for assistance. Either way, the car shouldn't be able to be driven away.
Wink wink.
Since pulling over for reasons other than an emergency on the shoulder is illegal, a $100 or so wakeup call will reduce/eliminate this practice pretty quick.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:07:47 AM
....
Since pulling over for reasons other than an emergency on the shoulder is illegal, a $100 or so wakeup call will reduce/eliminate this practice pretty quick.
Only if enforcement is fairly constant and merciless. There's occasional enforcement on the shoulder near the Pentagon, but the "shoulder-waiting" has persisted for at least 20 years now.
Separate question: Mapmikey and mtantillo, have you checked your online E-ZPass statements since I-95 tolling began? I'm curious how long it's taking for tolls to post for you. My $1.00 toll from New Year's Day just posted last night (it was not on there when I checked yesterday) and Sunday's toll isn't there yet. A week-long delay in posting tolls seems rather excessive, IMO. Beltway trips have consistently taken either four or five days (calendar days, not business days) to post. I wonder whether the explanation for the longer period would have something to do with the segments because the Post reported the tolling system will aggregate your segments into one single toll charge for a given trip (and, similarly and crucially, they'll aggregate them for violators so the bill received in the mail contains a single $12.50 fee, not $12.50 per segment).
Mine has been charged through 12/31 which occurred on 1/8...
I have auto replenish which I just increased but I wonder if delaying charging accounts causes people to run out of balance. The transaction summary treats each full trip as one item, then after one of them my reload occurred.
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 09, 2015, 11:24:34 AM
Mine has been charged through 12/31 which occurred on 1/8...
I have auto replenish which I just increased but I wonder if delaying charging accounts causes people to run out of balance. The transaction summary treats each full trip as one item, then after one of them my reload occurred.
Mapmikey
As long as the account holders has an automatic replenishment to their account, it will be seamless to them. As tolls have gone up since EZ Pass's inception, it's very easy for someone with a positive starting balance to drop below $0 after their account gets hit with the recent toll charges. The system recognizes this, and will simply reload the proper amount that night. The user incurs no penalties.
If the user doesn't have auto replenish, then they may have issues.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2015, 08:43:37 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on January 08, 2015, 06:48:24 PM
Just tell the cop your car broke down.
In law school we called that the laugh test–the argument isn't believable if you can't say it with a straight face.
My wife made an interesting point about the tolls tonight. If she drives to work, it's probably 45 minutes to an hour plus $10 to park (setting aside the cost of gas and depreciation). If she drives to the Metro, it's 45 minutes to an hour IF the trains run reliably (a massive IF), the train fare is $5.40 each way and the parking is $4.85, so the total is $15.65 (not counting gas and depreciation). If I drive her to the Metro, it's $10.80 and the time is about the same, maybe a bit less since she need not find parking.
Viewed in that respect, if I drive her via the Beltway HO/T lanes and I-66, the rush hour toll of $5 to $6 isn't as much as it sounds because the cost is comparable to the other options and the trip is a lot faster (tonight I picked her up and we got home in half an hour going 65 to 70 mph most of the way). Considering what a debacle the Metrorail has been this week, that shorter trip is a good tradeoff right now. Of course there is the time it takes me to drive to her office (20 minutes today), so if the Metro were running reliably the cost/benefit consideration might be different, but the Metro has been a disaster this week. Yesterday she wound up hitchiking from Arlington on Cemetery to her office! I REALLY don't want my wife hitchiking! (Slugging would be different.)
I'm glad that the I-66, Beltway HOT, I-95 HOT works for you, but to me it's a shame that you have to go so far out of your way to make the trip. Basically, the more direct way of using I-395 is more time consuming, even with HOT lanes beginning at Edsall.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2015, 09:12:23 AM
I just came back down I-395 from DC. I suppose this was to be expected:
As I passed Turkeycock at about 8:53 AM, I glanced left into the northbound express lanes at their terminus. About six or seven SOVs all stopped on the gore area for the flyover back to the local lanes with their hazard flashers on. One was so brazen he was reading the paper. You guessed it–they were obviously waiting for 9:00 AM when HOV ends, just like people do at the Pentagon. I think this is arguably more dangerous than near the Pentagon because they were stopped on the gore area rather than on a shoulder, meaning you get traffic going by on either side.
I'll see later today whether the camera picked them up. Between sun glare and the location, I kind of doubt it.
Yes, another hazard due to the inconsistent treatment of the lanes in Arlington County and in the rest of NoVa. The drivers should be ticketed if there is no safe place for them to wait.
Another idea might be to extend HOV hours (Arlington County section). Perhaps until 9:30 a.m. in the morning and 6:30 p.m. in the evening.
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 02:17:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2015, 09:12:23 AM
I just came back down I-395 from DC. I suppose this was to be expected:
As I passed Turkeycock at about 8:53 AM, I glanced left into the northbound express lanes at their terminus. About six or seven SOVs all stopped on the gore area for the flyover back to the local lanes with their hazard flashers on. One was so brazen he was reading the paper. You guessed it–they were obviously waiting for 9:00 AM when HOV ends, just like people do at the Pentagon. I think this is arguably more dangerous than near the Pentagon because they were stopped on the gore area rather than on a shoulder, meaning you get traffic going by on either side.
I'll see later today whether the camera picked them up. Between sun glare and the location, I kind of doubt it.
Yes, another hazard due to the inconsistent treatment of the lanes in Arlington County and in the rest of NoVa. The drivers should be ticketed if there is no safe place for them to wait.
Another idea might be to extend HOV hours (Arlington County section). Perhaps until 9:30 a.m. in the morning and 6:30 p.m. in the evening.
In my personal opinion, an even better idea - just extend the 95 Express lanes all the way up to the Potomac River, and encourage D.C. to make a deal with Transurban for crossing the river on the (former) HOV lane spans.
I met a client in Lorton earlier today and went a bit out of my way on the return trip to check out the Heller Road ramp to I-95. As I've previously noted, the ramp is a one-way (entry-only) ramp connecting Heller Road to the pre-existing flyover just north of Newington leading from the northbound reversible lanes to the general-purpose lanes. For practical safety reasons, the ramp is open only when the express lanes are pointed southbound. It permits access to the northbound general-purpose lanes and the southbound express lanes and it's height-restricted (interesting, since trucks aren't supposed to be on Heller Road anyway).
What I found a little peculiar was that the signs on Heller Road are all exclusively the "E-ZPass EXPRESS ONLY" signs showing toll rates down to "95-DALE" (other points listed are "RTE 123" and "PW PKWY"). There are no signs indicating you can go north on I-95. Once you're on the ramp, there's a Little Green Sign advising of that option. Then you come to a T-intersection at the pre-existing flyover. You definitely have to slow down. I took the turn a bit faster than I probably should have. That's a major reason why the ramp cannot be open, in either direction, when the express lanes are pointed northbound: Turning traffic has to slow down too much and it'd be unsafe.
Anyway, I can't really see any reason why most people, aside from folks who work at or are visiting the intelligence facility in the Fort Belvoir North area (formerly the Proving Grounds) would ever be all that likely to use this ramp because it's not particularly convenient to access, setting aside the issue of almost nobody knowing where it is. If you're in the Newington area, most people wanting to use the express lanes would use the Boudinot Drive ramp ("FC PKWY" on northbound toll-rate signs) and most people wanting to use the general-purpose lanes would use the existing cloverleaf. If you're closer to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, people heading to the express lanes would use that road and most people wanting the general-purpose lanes would go up to Route 644. About the only members of the general public I can see finding much reason to use this ramp on a regular basis are the small number of people who live in the residential neighborhood off Backlick between the Parkway and Barta Road (simply because it eliminates going through all those long lights in Springfield) and the people who work at, or patronize, the businesses on Backlick between Barta and Fullerton Road (because it eliminates the convoluted routing you have to use from there through Newington). Of course, if you want the southbound general-purpose lanes or the northbound express lanes, this ramp does nothing for you.
(BTW, note the odd Little Blue Sign on Heller Road giving directions at about the 0:17 mark. I assume it was probably posted by the Defense Department. It's certainly not a VDOT-spec sign, although I've seen VDOT post a Little White Sign on the southbound Exit 51 offramp from the Beltway, so who knows....)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2015, 03:27:25 PM
I met a client in Lorton earlier today and went a bit out of my way on the return trip to check out the Heller Road ramp to I-95. As I've previously noted, the ramp is a one-way (entry-only) ramp connecting Heller Road to the pre-existing flyover just north of Newington leading from the northbound reversible lanes to the general-purpose lanes. For practical safety reasons, the ramp is open only when the express lanes are pointed southbound. It permits access to the northbound general-purpose lanes and the southbound express lanes and it's height-restricted (interesting, since trucks aren't supposed to be on Heller Road anyway).
I heard about this ramp connecting to the Newington flyover when it was being planned, and was not aware that it was going to allow access to the northbound conventional (non-managed) lanes of I-95. I thought it was for access to the managed lanes when they were pointing south - only.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 08, 2015, 07:15:52 AM
Major Fail!
Gates on the express lanes were frozen and had to be opened manually. Even with opening time at 2 a.m. they were not able to open them fully until nearly 6.
Part of the reason for how long it took to do it manually is that all the ramps now have 10-16 gates each...
Mainline 95 from Dumfries to Woodbridge does not do well at all when the lanes are closed for whatever reason...a little better north of VA 123.
Agreed. This sounded ugly.
WTOP Radio reported: Cold weather keeps gates of 95 Express Lanes closed (http://wtop.com/news/2015/01/cold-weather-keeps-gates-95-express-lanes-closed/)
QuoteThe big chill kept the new 95 Express Lanes in Virginia from opening on time for the Thursday morning rush hour, leaving drivers without an option to pay tolls for a quicker commute.
QuoteThe gates near the entrance to the northbound lanes near Garrisonville, Virginia, could not open automatically, due to the cold. So they had to be opened manually, according to Pierce Coffee, a spokeswoman for Transurban, which manages the lanes.
QuoteThe gates are normally open by 2 a.m., but they remained closed at 5 a.m. But shortly before 6 a.m., all of the gates were opened and traffic resumed in the Express Lanes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2015, 03:27:25 PM
You definitely have to slow down. I took the turn a bit faster than I probably should have. That's a major reason why the ramp cannot be open, in either direction, when the express lanes are pointed northbound: Turning traffic has to slow down too much and it'd be unsafe.
It's a T junction. Is there a reason making a right there is safe but making a left there wouldn't be? It's not really a flyover; just an overpass connecting to a frontage road.
Quote from: vdeane on January 10, 2015, 01:38:48 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2015, 03:27:25 PM
You definitely have to slow down. I took the turn a bit faster than I probably should have. That's a major reason why the ramp cannot be open, in either direction, when the express lanes are pointed northbound: Turning traffic has to slow down too much and it'd be unsafe.
It's a T junction. Is there a reason making a right there is safe but making a left there wouldn't be? It's not really a flyover; just an overpass connecting to a frontage road.
It is indeed a flyover connecting two carriageways of a three-carriageway Interstate. The ramp coming from my right in that video connects the northbound express lanes (reversible center carriageway) to the northbound general-purpose lanes. People come up that ramp at high speed. Having people making a left turn in front of them at slow speed (or, alternatively, slowing to turn left to use it as an exit) would be quite dangerous.
There's no real frontage road along I-95 there in the Texas sense of a frontage road. Backlick and Loisdale Roads parallel I-95 there but don't really serve as frontage roads. Backlick, in particular, is a longer road that connects Newington and Springfield to Annandale further north. Loisdale has no direct connections to I-95.
I hope this map link works since I'm using Google Maps on my iPad. The ramp is roughly at the center, running from the left of where it says "Field Lark Branch." zoom in closer to see the flyover ramp on the right. (I use the term "flyover" to distinguish from a "slip ramp," a left-side surface-level ramp connecting the carriageways.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7489368,-77.1848413,16.22z
Edited to add: I searched online for a press release or the like and found something saying if additional funding materializes in the future, the ramp may be modified to allow northbound express lane traffic to use it as an exit ramp. Currently the barriers close and prohibit that for the reason I previously noted.
http://www.army.mil/article/121493/Ramp_to_connect_Fort_Belvoir_North_to_I_95/
Is there a reason slip ramps weren't used to connect the reversible lanes to I-95?
There were 3 southbound prior to the recent construction and conversion to HO/T lanes. Two were removed as part of the conversion. One still remains for the VA 234 Dumfries exit.
I would surmise that the reason the ramp being discussed in the above few posts was that a slip ramp there would require traffic trying to get to the Beltway to cross the entirety of mainline 95 to access the ramps to either direction. Once the Beltway interchange was reconfigured over 1998-2006 people wanting to go east on the Beltway did have to cross back over all the lanes of 95 to access that ramp.
There are a number of slip ramps for mainline traffic to access the reversible lanes, though...
Mapmikey
Another reason for the ramp noted above being a flyover to the right side may well be that the exit ramp to Springfield (splits to Springfield Mall and westbound Route 644) is a short distance north of there and draws a lot of traffic. Having a flyover to the right side makes it easier for that traffic to exit.
Nowadays, accessing the Beltway from the northbound express lanes no longer requires exiting to the mainline since the massive HOV ramp opened in November 2012, though using said ramp may, as of last week, require a steeper toll.
The slip ramp Mapmikey notes near Route 234 is better than a flyover there because a truck weigh station would interfere with a flyover.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2015, 02:38:14 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 02:17:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2015, 09:12:23 AM
I just came back down I-395 from DC. I suppose this was to be expected:
As I passed Turkeycock at about 8:53 AM, I glanced left into the northbound express lanes at their terminus. About six or seven SOVs all stopped on the gore area for the flyover back to the local lanes with their hazard flashers on. One was so brazen he was reading the paper. You guessed it–they were obviously waiting for 9:00 AM when HOV ends, just like people do at the Pentagon. I think this is arguably more dangerous than near the Pentagon because they were stopped on the gore area rather than on a shoulder, meaning you get traffic going by on either side.
I'll see later today whether the camera picked them up. Between sun glare and the location, I kind of doubt it.
Yes, another hazard due to the inconsistent treatment of the lanes in Arlington County and in the rest of NoVa. The drivers should be ticketed if there is no safe place for them to wait.
Another idea might be to extend HOV hours (Arlington County section). Perhaps until 9:30 a.m. in the morning and 6:30 p.m. in the evening.
In my personal opinion, an even better idea - just extend the 95 Express lanes all the way up to the Potomac River, and encourage D.C. to make a deal with Transurban for crossing the river on the (former) HOV lane spans.
Of course, all of these problems are becuase of the Arlington County lawsuit and Transurban's quick acquiescence on the issue. If the entire corridor from Pentagon SOUTH (and ideally from DC SOUTH) had the same rules, we wouldn't have any of these issues.
I remember some posts either here or on Dr G's column with how many people would use the HOV lanes at exactly 6 p.m. Well, rush hour does not end at 6 p.m. anymore and it should be later.
Of course, one nice thing about HOT treatment is that there is no longer a hybrid exception. Everybody is treated the same. If you are HOV-3 and have a Flex you get to use the lanes for free. If not, you can pay for the privelege.
Perhaps there can be legislation to fix this issue and have the entire section be HOT.
QuoteAnyway, I can't really see any reason why most people, aside from folks who work at or are visiting the intelligence facility in the Fort Belvoir North area (formerly the Proving Grounds) would ever be all that likely to use this ramp because it's not particularly convenient to access,
It's the reciprocal of this ramp (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=38.74636,-77.194417&hl=en&ll=38.747323,-77.188933&spn=0.010376,0.02281&sll=38.745457,-77.190596&sspn=0.005188,0.011405&mra=mift&mrsp=0&sz=17&t=m&z=16) (coincidentally the same ramp you were on at the start of your video). Combined, the two allow direct access between NGA and 95 North. It's effectively a half-interchange to/from the north.
Quote from: froggie on January 11, 2015, 09:05:03 AM
QuoteAnyway, I can't really see any reason why most people, aside from folks who work at or are visiting the intelligence facility in the Fort Belvoir North area (formerly the Proving Grounds) would ever be all that likely to use this ramp because it's not particularly convenient to access,
It's the reciprocal of this ramp (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=38.74636,-77.194417&hl=en&ll=38.747323,-77.188933&spn=0.010376,0.02281&sll=38.745457,-77.190596&sspn=0.005188,0.011405&mra=mift&mrsp=0&sz=17&t=m&z=16) (coincidentally the same ramp you were on at the start of your video). Combined, the two allow direct access between NGA and 95 North. It's effectively a half-interchange to/from the north.
Sure, but that doesn't change the validity of my conclusion that most people will not have a use for it.
(Edited to add: Nor did I ever mean to imply it needs to be useful for most members of the public.)
The area is filled with special on-ramps that primarily serve federal facilities. This is similar to the special ramps to NSA, Goddard from the BW Pkwy or the ramp to CIA from GW Pkwy.
Those ramps probably get significant traffic from agency employees, even though the general public won't use them.
Here, it's the same way, except that the exit is technically accesible to the public. But most people won't use it unless they are reaching Ft Belvoir or are trying to avoid a jam.
From southbound I-395 this morning just before 9:00 I noted intense State Police activity in the express lanes at Turkeycock–at least three cop cars, maybe four, all ticketing the gore-stoppers and shoulder-waiters (I say "shoulder" for lack of a better term since there isn't really a full shoulder in there on either side). Good job by the authorities of dealing with it promptly, though it'll take a sustained effort to show they mean business.
So now what? People will drive slowly so they don't reach the transition before 9? Fine by me.
Maybe they'll leave later.
And that's why I found odd. People leaving early just to sit on the road? Why not spend another 10 minutes at home???
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 12:34:32 PM
Maybe they'll leave later.
And that's why I found odd. People leaving early just to sit on the road? Why not spend another 10 minutes at home???
I think they planned for traffic delays between home and getting on the express lanes, and when those delays didn't happen they wound up with a few extra minutes when they got to Turkeycock. Once they figure out exactly how long it'll normally take them from getting on the express lanes to Turkeycock, they might do their shoulder (or safer place) wait just before entering the express lanes. Or, as NE2 suggests, dial back their speed a little in the express lanes to make sure they reach Turkeycock just after 9am.
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2015, 12:31:13 PM
So now what? People will drive slowly so they don't reach the transition before 9? Fine by me.
That's what I'd do–stay in the far right lane and go 50 or 55 mph. The law doesn't require you to go 65 just because the sign permits it, although I saw an argument elsewhere saying that if you go below the speed limit, you should be ticketed for obstructing traffic. If you're driving in the left lane for no reason and going slowly I'd be inclined to agree with that, but that's why I said "stay in the far right lane." I try pretty hard to keep right except to pass when I'm on a relatively open highway (recognizing crowded urban highways are often a different situation due to traffic volume), regardless of my speed, and I wish other people would learn to do the same (except of course in places where you drive on the left).
Interesting news item from Dr. Gridlock: HO/T lane tolls were suspended for a time Sunday night, and again last night, to encourage people to use them prior to forecast bad weather. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/01/14/express-lanes-temporarily-suspended-tolls-because-of-weather/) The increased traffic evidently improves the performance of whatever they use to pre-treat the road surface.
(Last night's free period was definitely not during rush hour–we paid $5.20 from I-66 to Springfield at about 5:48 PM.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 13, 2015, 02:16:01 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2015, 12:31:13 PM
So now what? People will drive slowly so they don't reach the transition before 9? Fine by me.
That's what I'd do—stay in the far right lane and go 50 or 55 mph. The law doesn't require you to go 65 just because the sign permits it, although I saw an argument elsewhere saying that if you go below the speed limit, you should be ticketed for obstructing traffic. If you're driving in the left lane for no reason and going slowly I'd be inclined to agree with that, but that's why I said "stay in the far right lane." I try pretty hard to keep right except to pass when I'm on a relatively open highway (recognizing crowded urban highways are often a different situation due to traffic volume), regardless of my speed, and I wish other people would learn to do the same (except of course in places where you drive on the left).
In the long run, driving 10 mph slower won't matter.
Let's say it's 10 miles to get from the starting point to the HOT lanes.
At 60 mph, it'll take you 10 minutes.
At 50 mph, it'll take you 12 minutes.
If the people on the shoulder are there long enough to read a paper, driving a bit slower isn't going to matter all that much. Even driving 30 miles just to reach that point, going 10 mph slower the whole way will take them an additional 6 minutes. And if the point of leaving earlier is to account for potential delays, they're probably not going to want to drive slower and potentially hit those potential delays.
Most of the people who sit on the shoulder will not have been going as slowly as you suggest if they're going full-speed! Over the years I've generally found that, during HOV hours, if you're going 75, you're one of the slower cars on the road (speed limit is 65). Going 50 mph versus 80 mph is a more significant difference than 50 versus 60. A 12-minute difference in driving the full length of the lanes is potentially enough in terms of the timing.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2015, 10:23:12 AM
Most of the people who sit on the shoulder will not have been going as slowly as you suggest if they're going full-speed! Over the years I've generally found that, during HOV hours, if you're going 75, you're one of the slower cars on the road (speed limit is 65). Going 50 mph versus 80 mph is a more significant difference than 50 versus 60. A 12-minute difference in driving the full length of the lanes is potentially enough in terms of the timing.
If someone is used to going 80 mph, they are definitely not going to change their habits and start driving 50 mph!!! I know that example is a bit of an exaggeration, but in general people that drive fast simply can't drive slower, even if they wanted to.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2015, 10:26:48 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2015, 10:23:12 AM
Most of the people who sit on the shoulder will not have been going as slowly as you suggest if they're going full-speed! Over the years I've generally found that, during HOV hours, if you're going 75, you're one of the slower cars on the road (speed limit is 65). Going 50 mph versus 80 mph is a more significant difference than 50 versus 60. A 12-minute difference in driving the full length of the lanes is potentially enough in terms of the timing.
If someone is used to going 80 mph, they are definitely not going to change their habits and start driving 50 mph!!! I know that example is a bit of an exaggeration, but in general people that drive fast simply can't drive slower, even if they wanted to.
Yeah, I know it's not easy. I still think it's utterly irresponsible and unacceptable to stop on the gore area or the shoulder, though.
So, I roadtripped it from NJ to FL Thursday night. It allowed to be view the completed HO/T lanes for the first time too.
I was in the area around 9pm. Toll for the entire length would've been about $4.25-$4.50. Overall, very few were using the lanes. They appeared to be preparing for lane closures in the general use lanes. 4 cops were scattered along the right shoulder. A broken down 18 wheeler was on the left shoulder, ready to be towed. An arrow truck was being used to temporarily close that left lane to help move the truck away.
Huge banners hung over the HO/T lanes, reminding people they need an EZ Pass, and for the HOV-3, they need an EZ Pass Flex. The banners were mostly hung at the top of overpasses.
They really loaded up on the variable speed limit signs. If there were open/closed lane indicators, there was a VSLS. Too many, in my opinion, as close to every quarter mile from each other. The NJ Turnpike, for comparisons sake, has them every 3-4 miles on average.
If there's congestion issues at the southern end, I can see why. That's a pretty lousy setup. And how long were those condos/apts there? It's like I can go for miles without seeing anything off on the right shoulder, and then right at the merge there's housing.
QuoteAnd how long were those condos/apts there?
Based on aerial imagery, looks like construction on them began in 2008, a few years before the HO/T lane project was finalized and begun.
Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2015, 11:31:48 AM
QuoteAnd how long were those condos/apts there?
Based on aerial imagery, looks like construction on them began in 2008, a few years before the HO/T lane project was finalized and begun.
If I recall, around then the project was under discussion but there was still talk of running it all the way to Massaponax. Perhaps a different configuration around Aquia was envisioned?
Jeff, it's worth noting that part of the reason you pass next to nothing north of there is that once you pass Route 234 on your way south, you pass Prince William Forest Park (west of the highway), Forest Greens Golf Course (also west of the highway and part of a county-owned park; it's fairly easy to see from the road during winter), and Marine Corps Base Quantico (both sides of the highway). So those things all preclude much development through that area and Exit 143 is the first place south of all that where stuff could grow up.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2015, 01:00:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2015, 11:31:48 AM
QuoteAnd how long were those condos/apts there?
Based on aerial imagery, looks like construction on them began in 2008, a few years before the HO/T lane project was finalized and begun.
If I recall, around then the project was under discussion but there was still talk of running it all the way to Massaponax. Perhaps a different configuration around Aquia was envisioned?
Discussion about extending the managed lanes along the I-95 Corridor south has been going on off-and-on since they were extended south to just south of Va. 234. You may remember that the bridge now being used for the 95 Express Lanes over Mine Road and Dumfries Creek (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=38.5682,-77.335149&num=1&t=h&z=16) sat unused for quite a few years after it was used as a (temporary) detour while the bridges carrying the conventional lanes had their decks replaced.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2015, 01:00:27 PM
Jeff, it's worth noting that part of the reason you pass next to nothing north of there is that once you pass Route 234 on your way south, you pass Prince William Forest Park (west of the highway), Forest Greens Golf Course (also west of the highway and part of a county-owned park; it's fairly easy to see from the road during winter), and Marine Corps Base Quantico (both sides of the highway). So those things all preclude much development through that area and Exit 143 is the first place south of all that where stuff could grow up.
Agreed. Though the Defense Department consolidated its criminal investigations network agencies at a site off of Telegraph Road west of I-95, which brought a lot of added jobs to the MCB Quantico site.
QuoteIf I recall, around then the project was under discussion but there was still talk of running it all the way to Massaponax. Perhaps a different configuration around Aquia was envisioned?
As I recall, the project was shortened from Massaponax to Garrisonville at the same time that it was dropped from Arlington. Prior to the announcement that it would end at Turkeycock, the plan was still to go to Massaponax. Though it didn't get as much press, I believe the truncation to Garrisonville was done as a cost-saving measure.
Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2015, 03:42:43 PM
QuoteIf I recall, around then the project was under discussion but there was still talk of running it all the way to Massaponax. Perhaps a different configuration around Aquia was envisioned?
As I recall, the project was shortened from Massaponax to Garrisonville at the same time that it was dropped from Arlington.
You recall correctly. I saw the plans online, which showed the managed lanes going all the way to Massaponax.
Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2015, 03:42:43 PM
Prior to the announcement that it would end at Turkeycock, the plan was still to go to Massaponax. Though it didn't get as much press, I believe the truncation to Garrisonville was done as a cost-saving measure.
I think that's correct. But the loss of revenue by not being able to collect tolls from traffic north of Turkeycock Run may have made selling bonds for the section south of Garrisonville dicey at best.
Though I am not sure I would give up on either of those sections becoming managed HOV/Toll lanes at this point. Do not forget that D.C. is still interested in tolling the former HOV spans across the Potomac River at the 14th Street Bridge complex.
Dr. Gridlock reports on VDOT considering making I-66 inside the Beltway fully HO/T. Four things I find particularly interesting:
(1) VDOT had planned to restore HOV-3 (the pre-1995 rule) by 2020.
(2) HO/T would be in effect in both directions during peak hours, not just in the peak direction as is the case with the current HOV rules.
(3) HO/T would not apply outside peak hours.
(4) VDOT would operate the HO/T system itself, rather than contracting it out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/01/21/i-66-could-go-all-hot-inside-the-beltway/
Quote(1) VDOT had planned to restore HOV-3 (the pre-1995 rule) by 2020.
Increasing congestion, even during peak, is what was driving this one (pun intended).
The question mark with such a plan, which has been discussed in the past, is how this would affect the agreements allowing solo drivers onto I-66 during the peak if they're going to/from Dulles.
Quote from: froggie on January 21, 2015, 12:09:38 PM
Quote(1) VDOT had planned to restore HOV-3 (the pre-1995 rule) by 2020.
Increasing congestion, even during peak, is what was driving this one (pun intended).
The question mark with such a plan, which has been discussed in the past, is how this would affect the agreements allowing solo drivers onto I-66 during the peak if they're going to/from Dulles.
Regarding the HOV-3, I found it interesting just because I didn't know it was formally planned. I knew the idea had been discussed. I've certainly noticed how much worse the morning peak-direction congestion is even during HOV-2 hours.
Regarding the Dulles issue, I think you're right about it being a potential problem. I noted in my comments to that blog post that it would not be technologically difficult to put an E-ZPass gantry over the Dulles Access Road near Route 123 so that anyone who heads out I-66 and onto the Access Road is credited with a $0.00 toll. We know that can be done because Maine does something similar with the West Gardiner Toll Plaza. Yes, there would surely be cheaters. But there are already cheaters today. I doubt the number of cheaters would severely spike upwards because I question whether the average driver will, on a day-to-day basis, be willing to drive an extra 20 miles (16 miles from I-66 to Dulles, then some distance to backtrack) in order to avoid that toll.
However, there would surely be protests from people who do not have E-ZPass who want to use I-66 and the Access Road. Presumably the cameras could catch that–if, after all, they're already reviewing the photos in order to bill people who use the existing HO/T lanes without E-ZPass, why couldn't the same apply in this case to determine that a particular vehicle should not be tolled? I have no idea how practical this idea is nor how much it would cost to implement it, but it doesn't seem far-fetched to me.
Yeah, couldn't they just put a gantry over the Dulles access road to snap a picture of every licence plate that goes by and voids out any tolls/fees incurred on the corresponding trip on the HOT lanes?
Any particular reason for going HOT both directions during peak hours rather than just the commuting direction?
Quote from: vdeane on January 21, 2015, 12:52:46 PM
....
Any particular reason for going HOT both directions during peak hours rather than just the commuting direction?
I assume it's due to congestion. I-66 inside the Beltway is a strange beast in that it's the rare road that is almost always congested (well, maybe not in the middle of the night) except for the peak direction during peak hours. If I pick up Ms1995hoo at her office and we head west on I-66 as an HOV-2 during the afternoon rush hour, we'll be doing 65 mph and the inbound side will be at a standstill. On the rare occasions when I drive her to work in the morning and we use inbound I-66 following the suggestion mtantillo made way back in the first post in this thread, we can see the outbound side is at a standstill through Arlington.
In practical terms, I think VDOT's recognizing that the 1960s/1970s planning model in which everyone was assumed to commute into downtown DC in the morning and back out in the afternoon is no longer a realistic model. The term "reverse commute" has been around for years to refer to people who live closer in (either DC or Arlington) and commute out to suburban destinations (Arlington to Tysons is a fine example). But "reverse commute" isn't really the right term anymore either because there are so many commutes from suburb to suburb–for example, we live about a mile and a half outside the Beltway and one of our neighbors commutes to Tysons. Once the planners finally accept that the old "suburb to city" model is outdated, it becomes important to manage the traffic and congestion caused by other commutes. I think the idea of bidirectional HO/T lanes during peak hours is a stab at recognizing that sort of thing and managing the congestion.
(Back in June 2003 when I went from downtown to Dulles Airport in the morning to see the final Air France Concorde landing at Dulles, I wound up exiting I-66 and driving through Arlington's streets. It was faster than I-66 even though the speed limit was 30 mph and there were red lights.)
Quote from: froggie on January 21, 2015, 12:09:38 PM
Quote(1) VDOT had planned to restore HOV-3 (the pre-1995 rule) by 2020.
Increasing congestion, even during peak, is what was driving this one (pun intended).
And air quality modeling assumptions.
Quote from: froggie on January 21, 2015, 12:09:38 PM
The question mark with such a plan, which has been discussed in the past, is how this would affect the agreements allowing solo drivers onto I-66 during the peak if they're going to/from Dulles.
Two possibilities:
(1) Eliminate it; or
(2) A variant on what Valerie suggested above, put gantries over the far eastern end of "secret" Va. 90004 (Dulles Access Road), near Va. 123, and record the E-ZPass Transponder numbers of passing vehicles, and if they were driven under gantries on I-66 between Rosslyn and the Dulles Connector Road, zero-out that toll. But make it clear by signage that only vehicles with E-ZPass get a toll-free ride on I-66.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 21, 2015, 01:00:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 21, 2015, 12:52:46 PM
....
Any particular reason for going HOT both directions during peak hours rather than just the commuting direction?
I assume it's due to congestion. I-66 inside the Beltway is a strange beast in that it's the rare road that is almost always congested (well, maybe not in the middle of the night) except for the peak direction during peak hours. If I pick up Ms1995hoo at her office and we head west on I-66 as an HOV-2 during the afternoon rush hour, we'll be doing 65 mph and the inbound side will be at a standstill. On the rare occasions when I drive her to work in the morning and we use inbound I-66 following the suggestion mtantillo made way back in the first post in this thread, we can see the outbound side is at a standstill through Arlington.
I-66 is frequently congested during times when it "should" not be. It's interesting to watch the massive amount of traffic that enters I-66 westbound from the Hallowed Ground of transit-oriented Ballston area of Arlington County via Va. 120 (North Glebe Road) and then the part of Fairfax Drive that leads to I-66.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 21, 2015, 01:00:00 PM
In practical terms, I think VDOT's recognizing that the 1960s/1970s planning model in which everyone was assumed to commute into downtown DC in the morning and back out in the afternoon is no longer a realistic model. The term "reverse commute" has been around for years to refer to people who live closer in (either DC or Arlington) and commute out to suburban destinations (Arlington to Tysons is a fine example). But "reverse commute" isn't really the right term anymore either because there are so many commutes from suburb to suburb–for example, we live about a mile and a half outside the Beltway and one of our neighbors commutes to Tysons. Once the planners finally accept that the old "suburb to city" model is outdated, it becomes important to manage the traffic and congestion caused by other commutes. I think the idea of bidirectional HO/T lanes during peak hours is a stab at recognizing that sort of thing and managing the congestion.
Agreed. The main reason for "promotion" of traditional commutes (from suburbs to downtown in AM and downtown to suburbs in PM) is because that's the only trip pattern that can effectively serve a lot of people with transit. Montgomery County, Maryland's large population of civic activists and environmentalists over and over and over claimed that radial commutes are the only ones that matter, and that circumferential commutes on the Capital Beltway (and recently on the ICC) should be ignored.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 21, 2015, 01:00:00 PM
(Back in June 2003 when I went from downtown to Dulles Airport in the morning to see the final Air France Concorde landing at Dulles, I wound up exiting I-66 and driving through Arlington's streets. It was faster than I-66 even though the speed limit was 30 mph and there were red lights.)
I have done that myself, though westbound I-66 is better since the extra lane was added between Fairfax Drive and Sycamore Street.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 21, 2015, 09:21:13 AM
Dr. Gridlock reports on VDOT considering making I-66 inside the Beltway fully HO/T. Four things I find particularly interesting:
(1) VDOT had planned to restore HOV-3 (the pre-1995 rule) by 2020.
(2) HO/T would be in effect in both directions during peak hours, not just in the peak direction as is the case with the current HOV rules.
(3) HO/T would not apply outside peak hours.
(4) VDOT would operate the HO/T system itself, rather than contracting it out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/01/21/i-66-could-go-all-hot-inside-the-beltway/
As others have said, I-66 is different from 95 and 495. 95 and 495 still have the free lanes, for I-66 the only lanes available would become HOT. The free options are surface streets or semi-expressways like US 50. For that regard, they would only apply HOT for a very limited context - rush hours. The private sector would probably not want to get involved because of the limited hours of collection, so VDOT will be running the program.
And as far as reverse commuting goes, I-66 is basically the D.C. version of the Santa Monica Freeway in the LA area. Historically, traffic was worse going to Downtown LA in the morning, but now it's the opposite as there has been so much job growth in Santa Monica and West LA. The dominant commuting direction is now away from Downtown. And that's the case with Tysons, more traffic heading to Tysons, since there is no HOV restriction and [until Silver line came] it was very hard to use transit to Tysons, so more people would drive in that direction.
IMO, I'd be glad to see the Dulles exemption go away. Airport travelers (just like hybrid drivers) do not deserve a special exemption from traffic and tolls. Let all drivers in the corridor pay toll within the Beltway, whether heading to Fairfax, Tysons, or Dulles. Turn the Dulles Access Road into a HOV lane and single occupant drivers to Dulles should use the regular lanes of the Toll Road and all drivers on the Dulles Highway (DAR + DTR) between the Beltway and Sully Rd should pay tolls.
May I just say how refreshing and nice it is to see intelligent commentary here on issues such as this one? I was just looking at the comments on Dr. Gridlock's blog and the level of stupidity displayed by some of those people just makes me shake my head. There are some people who don't like the HO/T lanes or the way they are operated who have some well-reasoned points, but a lot of the people appear to have the writing ability of third-graders and the intelligence to match.
"These lanes have ruined the Beltway." How, exactly, has that happened when you still have the same number of lanes available to all traffic (with the same lane restrictions for HAZMATs) you had before, plus a rebuilt I-66 interchange and an extra lane between there and Tysons? Now, back when the Beltway lanes opened there was a brief–less than a week–furor about the crashes at the lanes' southern end on the Inner Loop. The usual suspects wanted to condemn the entire project as an unsafe disaster. Guess what? People got used to the new configuration and you don't hear much about it anymore (although there was a crash there earlier this week in circumstances that were not mentioned on the news).
I am glad our transportation planners and highway engineers don't make snap judgments based on two or three weeks' worth of data. I must say, though, that's one thing that gives me pause about VDOT's I-66 proposal. The I-66 proposal is more comparable to the I-95 HO/T lanes than it is to the Beltway lanes because it involves taking existing lanes and converting them to HO/T. Because it involves converting the lanes running in the non-peak direction at rush hour, which are currently unrestricted except for the truck ban, I see it as imposing new restrictions on lanes currently open to all traffic. I certainly understand why that angers people, and I think VDOT should take the time to allow for the generation of, and examination of, meaningful data from I-95 to see how the 24/7 HO/T operations affect traffic there. It's only been three and a half weeks since tolling began on I-95, so it's way too soon to draw any conclusions. It took a while for traffic in the Beltway lanes to ramp up, but there's definitely way more traffic in them now than there was when they opened.
I think VDOT needs to wait a year or so and examine I-95 to see just how much effect there is on the general-purpose lanes and parallel roads like Route 1 due to people who formerly used the reversible lanes outside HOV hours and are now unwilling to pay a toll. It continues to surprise me on the Beltway just how stubborn some people are about not paying the tolls (I mean, come on, if you're coming from Maryland and going to Tysons Corner Center and the toll is 35¢, it's crazy NOT to pay it to avoid all those red lights in Tysons), but in theory on the Beltway someone refusing to pay doesn't affect the traffic because he's using the same lanes he would have used before. The same is not true on I-95. If indeed a year's worth of usage data show a serious knock-on effect on other routes, then that should be a cautionary note as to I-66. Realistically I think there is a difference between people bailing off the Interstate for a long-distance arterial like Route 1 versus for residential streets like Washington Boulevard in Arlington, which has at least two schools along the bail-out segment.
On the other hand, I suppose to some degree Arlington brought it on themselves with their general obstructionist attitude towards any road improvements, but I don't think it's right for VDOT to jump without better data gleaned from I-95.
Quote from: mrsman on January 22, 2015, 12:22:03 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 21, 2015, 09:21:13 AM
Dr. Gridlock reports on VDOT considering making I-66 inside the Beltway fully HO/T. Four things I find particularly interesting:
(1) VDOT had planned to restore HOV-3 (the pre-1995 rule) by 2020.
(2) HO/T would be in effect in both directions during peak hours, not just in the peak direction as is the case with the current HOV rules.
(3) HO/T would not apply outside peak hours.
(4) VDOT would operate the HO/T system itself, rather than contracting it out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/01/21/i-66-could-go-all-hot-inside-the-beltway/
As others have said, I-66 is different from 95 and 495. 95 and 495 still have the free lanes, for I-66 the only lanes available would become HOT. The free options are surface streets or semi-expressways like US 50. For that regard, they would only apply HOT for a very limited context - rush hours. The private sector would probably not want to get involved because of the limited hours of collection, so VDOT will be running the program.
I have said it elsewhere (sorry if I repeat myself), but I wish Virginia had an agency analogous to the Maryland Transportation Authority to run toll roads and toll crossings across the state.
As regards "rush hours," on I-66 that means mornings eastbound from 5 AM to 11 AM, and probably afternoons westbound 1 PM to 8 PM. The off-peak-flow directions (westbound in AM and eastbound in PM) have somewhat different hours, but the congestion is potentially every bit as bad.
Quote from: mrsman on January 22, 2015, 12:22:03 AM
And as far as reverse commuting goes, I-66 is basically the D.C. version of the Santa Monica Freeway in the LA area. Historically, traffic was worse going to Downtown LA in the morning, but now it's the opposite as there has been so much job growth in Santa Monica and West LA. The dominant commuting direction is now away from Downtown. And that's the case with Tysons, more traffic heading to Tysons, since there is no HOV restriction and [until Silver line came] it was very hard to use transit to Tysons, so more people would drive in that direction.
I presume at least some of that traffic headed to West L.A., Century City and around LAX probably comes from places well to the east of downtown L.A. along the I-10 and Ca. 60 Corridors.
Tysons does indeed attract a lot of traffic from places to its east.
Quote from: mrsman on January 22, 2015, 12:22:03 AM
IMO, I'd be glad to see the Dulles exemption go away. Airport travelers (just like hybrid drivers) do not deserve a special exemption from traffic and tolls. Let all drivers in the corridor pay toll within the Beltway, whether heading to Fairfax, Tysons, or Dulles. Turn the Dulles Access Road into a HOV lane and single occupant drivers to Dulles should use the regular lanes of the Toll Road and all drivers on the Dulles Highway (DAR + DTR) between the Beltway and Sully Rd should pay tolls.
There
may be legal reasons why the Dulles exemption needs to stay. Hybrids are no different these days from other vehicles. I would not repeat the mistake with all-electric vehicles either.
As for the Dulles Airport Access Road, it may not be possible to change the nature of the road (its design and construction was funded by the Federal Aviation Administration when they were building Dulles Airport (prior to the creation of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) in 1987, Dulles and National were run directly by the FAA), so it is probably part of the airport (in the FAA days, there were federal officers employed by the FAA that patrolled the Dulles Airport Access Road, predecessors to the MWAA Police Department).
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 22, 2015, 09:58:55 AM
May I just say how refreshing and nice it is to see intelligent commentary here on issues such as this one? I was just looking at the comments on Dr. Gridlock's blog and the level of stupidity displayed by some of those people just makes me shake my head. There are some people who don't like the HO/T lanes or the way they are operated who have some well-reasoned points, but a lot of the people appear to have the writing ability of third-graders and the intelligence to match.
Those folks should take it up with their members of the Virginia General Assembly.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 22, 2015, 09:58:55 AM
"These lanes have ruined the Beltway." How, exactly, has that happened when you still have the same number of lanes available to all traffic (with the same lane restrictions for HAZMATs) you had before, plus a rebuilt I-66 interchange and an extra lane between there and Tysons? Now, back when the Beltway lanes opened there was a brief–less than a week–furor about the crashes at the lanes' southern end on the Inner Loop. The usual suspects wanted to condemn the entire project as an unsafe disaster. Guess what? People got used to the new configuration and you don't hear much about it anymore (although there was a crash there earlier this week in circumstances that were not mentioned on the news).
Ruined the Beltway? LOL!
IMO, the entrance on the Inner Loop side should have been near the Robinson Terminal on a straight stretch, and would have been if it had been my call (but it was not).
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 22, 2015, 09:58:55 AM
I am glad our transportation planners and highway engineers don't make snap judgments based on two or three weeks' worth of data. I must say, though, that's one thing that gives me pause about VDOT's I-66 proposal. The I-66 proposal is more comparable to the I-95 HO/T lanes than it is to the Beltway lanes because it involves taking existing lanes and converting them to HO/T. Because it involves converting the lanes running in the non-peak direction at rush hour, which are currently unrestricted except for the truck ban, I see it as imposing new restrictions on lanes currently open to all traffic. I certainly understand why that angers people, and I think VDOT should take the time to allow for the generation of, and examination of, meaningful data from I-95 to see how the 24/7 HO/T operations affect traffic there. It's only been three and a half weeks since tolling began on I-95, so it's way too soon to draw any conclusions. It took a while for traffic in the Beltway lanes to ramp up, but there's definitely way more traffic in them now than there was when they opened.
I agree with you about the I-66 proposal being more like I-95, or even Md. 200, though you are correct about the truck ban (IMO, that was a mistake that was part of the Coleman Decision).
As for the data describing how well the 95 Express Lanes, let's just say that's a sore subject with me right now.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 22, 2015, 09:58:55 AM
I think VDOT needs to wait a year or so and examine I-95 to see just how much effect there is on the general-purpose lanes and parallel roads like Route 1 due to people who formerly used the reversible lanes outside HOV hours and are now unwilling to pay a toll. It continues to surprise me on the Beltway just how stubborn some people are about not paying the tolls (I mean, come on, if you're coming from Maryland and going to Tysons Corner Center and the toll is 35¢, it's crazy NOT to pay it to avoid all those red lights in Tysons), but in theory on the Beltway someone refusing to pay doesn't affect the traffic because he's using the same lanes he would have used before. The same is not true on I-95. If indeed a year's worth of usage data show a serious knock-on effect on other routes, then that should be a cautionary note as to I-66. Realistically I think there is a difference between people bailing off the Interstate for a long-distance arterial like Route 1 versus for residential streets like Washington Boulevard in Arlington, which has at least two schools along the bail-out segment.
Data collection is easy and cheap on the managed lanes and on most tolled roads (because of auditing requirements) - if the private operator wants to share said data. Not so much on nearby "free" roads, where traffic counts (especially of long duration) are expensive and rather difficult to do. In most cases, speed data are available for those roads, but those are not the same as count data.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 22, 2015, 09:58:55 AM
On the other hand, I suppose to some degree Arlington brought it on themselves with their general obstructionist attitude towards any road improvements, but I don't think it's right for VDOT to jump without better data gleaned from I-95.
I agree, if data are available.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 22, 2015, 11:02:36 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 22, 2015, 12:22:03 AM
And as far as reverse commuting goes, I-66 is basically the D.C. version of the Santa Monica Freeway in the LA area. Historically, traffic was worse going to Downtown LA in the morning, but now it's the opposite as there has been so much job growth in Santa Monica and West LA. The dominant commuting direction is now away from Downtown. And that's the case with Tysons, more traffic heading to Tysons, since there is no HOV restriction and [until Silver line came] it was very hard to use transit to Tysons, so more people would drive in that direction.
I presume at least some of that traffic headed to West L.A., Century City and around LAX probably comes from places well to the east of downtown L.A. along the I-10 and Ca. 60 Corridors.
Tysons does indeed attract a lot of traffic from places to its east.
Yes it's true the traffic is just a continuation of the traffic from the SB and Pomona Freeways, but the unique aspect is that 20 years ago, the freeway opened up as you left Downtown LA. That is not true anymore. But even more interesting is for traffic heading in the traditional commute direction, the driving is easier than it was 20 years ago. Yes, it's still rush hour, but
Granted, I don't live there anymore, but a quick check of google maps traffic shows green to DOwntown adn red/yellow away at 6:20 on a Friday morning. THis would've been crazy 20 years ago. And keep in mind, unlike I-66, there are no restrictions on traffic, it just happens that because of housing prices and jobs, fewer people with Downtown jobs live on the Westside.
Quote from: mrsman on January 22, 2015, 12:22:03 AM
IMO, I'd be glad to see the Dulles exemption go away. Airport travelers (just like hybrid drivers) do not deserve a special exemption from traffic and tolls. Let all drivers in the corridor pay toll within the Beltway, whether heading to Fairfax, Tysons, or Dulles. Turn the Dulles Access Road into a HOV lane and single occupant drivers to Dulles should use the regular lanes of the Toll Road and all drivers on the Dulles Highway (DAR + DTR) between the Beltway and Sully Rd should pay tolls.
There
may be legal reasons why the Dulles exemption needs to stay. Hybrids are no different these days from other vehicles. I would not repeat the mistake with all-electric vehicles either.
As for the Dulles Airport Access Road, it may not be possible to change the nature of the road (its design and construction was funded by the Federal Aviation Administration when they were building Dulles Airport (prior to the creation of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) in 1987, Dulles and National were run directly by the FAA), so it is probably part of the airport (in the FAA days, there were federal officers employed by the FAA that patrolled the Dulles Airport Access Road, predecessors to the MWAA Police Department).
[/quote]
As far as the legal reasons, couldn't either Congress or the state legislature pass some law around these old rules to allow for an exception here. For instance, couldn't they authorize granting control over the road from MWAA to VDOT. They may be able to make a legislative fix around the Coleman decision as well.
Returned from my Florida trip yesterday. Went thru the I-95, HO/T corridor about 11:00 - 11:30pm last night. Again, some more observations...
SB traffic could still use the HO/T lanes. A few vehicles were using them, but not many.
Around the 3rd entry going North, the gates were down, but the gate lights were not on. At least the gates are reflective, and the VMS signs still said lanes were closed. We did see a few more entry ways where the gate lights were only partially on. The entrance closest to the beltway the gate lights were flashing.
A little surprised the gates don't start at the beginning of the transfer (aka decal) lane, but rather close to the gore point.
They probably could've used some hybrid VMS/Drum signs, like on the NJ Turnpike dual-dual lanes. The advanced signs for the HO/T entry points are static signs starting at the 2 Mile Ahead or 1 Mile ahead point, then around the 1/2, 1/4 mile point is a VMS stating the lanes are closed. The static signs could have a rotating drum that say "Entry, 1 Mile Ahead" when the lanes are open, and "Closed" when the lanes are closed, instead of someone potentially trying to merge left to use the lanes, only to find out the lanes are closed close to the entry point...or someone finding out at the 1/4 mile point the lanes are indeed open.
It would also be nice when going north prior to reaching the beltway if there was a sign mentioning that the drawbridge is open. I ran into that for the first time yesterday. At the point I hit the stopped traffic, I was about a mile back from the drawbridge, and encountered about a 5 - 10 minute delay. Not too bad, although after 15 hours of driving with another 2 ahead of me, I just wanted to get home at that point!!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2015, 09:40:15 AM
....
It would also be nice when going north prior to reaching the beltway if there was a sign mentioning that the drawbridge is open. I ran into that for the first time yesterday. At the point I hit the stopped traffic, I was about a mile back from the drawbridge, and encountered about a 5 - 10 minute delay. Not too bad, although after 15 hours of driving with another 2 ahead of me, I just wanted to get home at that point!!
Sometimes the standalone VMS units (the ones that report time/distance info or "Report Suspicious Activity") do list that info. I've seen it on the one in advance of Exit 166 (the Fairfax County Parkway interchange), but they're inconsistent about it. I agree, it'd be very useful info because you could then detour the other way around the Beltway or through the District.
The radio traffic reports usually mention it when the bridge opens, but of course it's not reasonable to think out-of-area motorists would know what radio stations broadcast regular and reliable local traffic reports!
I took the western side of the beltway on the way down to see the new beltway express lanes, so I figured going north I'll take the eastern side of the beltway to see that area. It would've been worth it if I could see the drawbridge in the up position, but I was too far back to see that. I did notice this though: The flashing yellow lights on the drawbridge signs (the signs that say the bridge is open, expect stopped traffic) have little white strobes in them. And they stay on after traffic starts moving.
The local lanes had a shorter delay than the thru lanes. And one "Be Prepared To Stop" sign didn't have working flashing lights.
BTW, going back to the beltway express lanes...I saw one person doing maybe 50 mph in the left lane approaching the express lanes. I think she's missing the point regarding the "express" part of the express lanes!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2015, 10:48:41 AM
I took the western side of the beltway on the way down to see the new beltway express lanes, so I figured going north I'll take the eastern side of the beltway to see that area. It would've been worth it if I could see the drawbridge in the up position, but I was too far back to see that. I did notice this though: The flashing yellow lights on the drawbridge signs (the signs that say the bridge is open, expect stopped traffic) have little white strobes in them. And they stay on after traffic starts moving.
The local lanes had a shorter delay than the thru lanes. And one "Be Prepared To Stop" sign didn't have working flashing lights.
BTW, going back to the beltway express lanes...I saw one person doing maybe 50 mph in the left lane approaching the express lanes. I think she's missing the point regarding the "express" part of the express lanes!
You were coming south on the Outer Loop, correct? Was she going slowly in the work zone between the GW Parkway and the express lanes' northern terminus? I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. Every time there's a lane shift in a work zone around here, the removal of the old striping results in annoying ruts and such that can cause your car to pull one way or the other. I'm never surprised when people slow down when that starts happening. On the other hand, the other side of that work zone, i.e. on the Inner Loop, is where Jayson Werth was clocked at 105 mph last year!
Incidentally, down here at the lanes' southern end, it's not unusual on the Inner Loop to see people zooming down the approach to the express lanes and then suddenly jamming on the brakes to cut right into slow traffic–basically, they're determined to use every square millimetre of road as a passing lane and they don't care if they obstruct traffic from entering the express lanes. (Same sort of thing I used to see near the Pentagon in the morning rush hour where people already on the highway would change lanes to the right into an onramp's acceleration lane, race down the end, then try to cut back into traffic. No wonder so many people don't want to let anyone merge.)
I have not had the misfortune of encountering the current Wilson Bridge in the "up" position, thankfully, so I have not seen any of those lights in operation. It's interesting to note that the pedestrian walkway on the bridge's northern side has signals depicting "the Man and the Hand" to warn pedestrians and cyclists to stop when the drawspan is going to open.
Quote from: mrsman on January 23, 2015, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 22, 2015, 11:02:36 PM
There may be legal reasons why the Dulles exemption needs to stay. Hybrids are no different these days from other vehicles. I would not repeat the mistake with all-electric vehicles either.
As for the Dulles Airport Access Road, it may not be possible to change the nature of the road (its design and construction was funded by the Federal Aviation Administration when they were building Dulles Airport (prior to the creation of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) in 1987, Dulles and National were run directly by the FAA), so it is probably part of the airport (in the FAA days, there were federal officers employed by the FAA that patrolled the Dulles Airport Access Road, predecessors to the MWAA Police Department).
As far as the legal reasons, couldn't either Congress or the state legislature pass some law around these old rules to allow for an exception here. For instance, couldn't they authorize granting control over the road from MWAA to VDOT. They may be able to make a legislative fix around the Coleman decision as well.
Keeping the access road, and the I-66/VA 267 link from downtown, as free as possible for airport users helps encourage them to use Dulles rather than Reagan National. And the normally PITA Arlington County government has an interest in promoting use of Dulles, to minimize flight noise for county residents living near National and some of its flight paths.
It would be funny to have VDOT control the access road, but MWAA retain control of the adjacent toll road (which it wrestled away from VDOT to help pay for extension of Metro's Silver Line to Dulles).
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 23, 2015, 10:55:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2015, 10:48:41 AM
I took the western side of the beltway on the way down to see the new beltway express lanes, so I figured going north I'll take the eastern side of the beltway to see that area. It would've been worth it if I could see the drawbridge in the up position, but I was too far back to see that. I did notice this though: The flashing yellow lights on the drawbridge signs (the signs that say the bridge is open, expect stopped traffic) have little white strobes in them. And they stay on after traffic starts moving.
The local lanes had a shorter delay than the thru lanes. And one "Be Prepared To Stop" sign didn't have working flashing lights.
BTW, going back to the beltway express lanes...I saw one person doing maybe 50 mph in the left lane approaching the express lanes. I think she's missing the point regarding the "express" part of the express lanes!
You were coming south on the Outer Loop, correct? Was she going slowly in the work zone between the GW Parkway and the express lanes' northern terminus? I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. Every time there's a lane shift in a work zone around here, the removal of the old striping results in annoying ruts and such that can cause your car to pull one way or the other. I'm never surprised when people slow down when that starts happening. On the other hand, the other side of that work zone, i.e. on the Inner Loop, is where Jayson Werth was clocked at 105 mph last year!
Incidentally, down here at the lanes' southern end, it's not unusual on the Inner Loop to see people zooming down the approach to the express lanes and then suddenly jamming on the brakes to cut right into slow traffic–basically, they're determined to use every square millimetre of road as a passing lane and they don't care if they obstruct traffic from entering the express lanes. (Same sort of thing I used to see near the Pentagon in the morning rush hour where people already on the highway would change lanes to the right into an onramp's acceleration lane, race down the end, then try to cut back into traffic. No wonder so many people don't want to let anyone merge.)
I have not had the misfortune of encountering the current Wilson Bridge in the "up" position, thankfully, so I have not seen any of those lights in operation. It's interesting to note that the pedestrian walkway on the bridge's northern side has signals depicting "the Man and the Hand" to warn pedestrians and cyclists to stop when the drawspan is going to open.
Yep, the outer loop.
I didn't notice the lane markings being an issue, but maybe it was to this particular driver. There were 1 or 2 other cars flying past this one. I stayed in the general use lanes.
On the inner loop, the last second cutting in you refer to I see on a daily basis on my commute, especially near I-295's Interchange 26 (where 76 & 295 split), along with where 95 & 295 split off in Delaware.
It's possible that they didn't include drawbridge warning signs on 95 North before the Beltway because only about 20% of traffic on 95 approaching the Beltway actually continues onto the Outer Loop (95 North/495 East), and some of that traffic is exiting in Alexandria (as I did when I lived in Huntington). Another possibility is that the bridge raises so rarely these days that it's not worth the cost to put warning devices so far out. Please note that these two theories are just speculation, though speculation based on facts and traffic flow.
Quotebut MWAA retain control of the adjacent toll road (which it wrestled away from VDOT to help pay for extension of Metro's Silver Line to Dulles).
It wasn't wrestled away from VDOT so much as it was simply given to MWAA by the General Assembly...
Regarding HO/T lanes, I've created a new thread for discussion on the planned I-66 lanes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14544.0).
Quote from: froggie on January 23, 2015, 02:47:07 PM
....
Quotebut MWAA retain control of the adjacent toll road (which it wrestled away from VDOT to help pay for extension of Metro's Silver Line to Dulles).
It wasn't wrestled away from VDOT so much as it was simply given to MWAA by the General Assembly...
....
I didn't pay a lot of attention at the time and so don't know all the details, but I know a number of very prominent attorneys who maintain the General Assembly never voted on it and that the handover was effectuated via executive action. They contend that violates the Virginia Constitution because disposal of property belonging to the Commonwealth apparently requires a vote of the General Assembly (I have not researched the issue and so I neither agree nor disagree; I don't know). I believe there's a cert petition pending before the US Supreme Court relating to some aspect of the handover.
Some of the attorneys involved in that matter are brilliant guys, but I think they're probably barking up the wrong tree on this one even if their interpretation of the law is correct. I certainly don't know how they expect to be able to roll back the Toll Road handover and get relief from the increased tolls, which is one of their goals.
But that's not really germane to HO/T lanes, and the HO/T lanes' creation most definitely did follow state law.
Quote from: froggie on January 23, 2015, 02:47:07 PM
It's possible that they didn't include drawbridge warning signs on 95 North before the Beltway because only about 20% of traffic on 95 approaching the Beltway actually continues onto the Outer Loop (95 North/495 East), and some of that traffic is exiting in Alexandria (as I did when I lived in Huntington).
Knowing that's just theory as you stated, but 20% of traffic still equals approximately 40,000 vehicles per day. Even at 11:30pm at night, the delay across 5 lanes of traffic was at least 1 mile.
Fredericksburg.com: Drivers take measure of new express lanes on Interstate 95 (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/drivers-take-measure-of-new-express-lanes-on-interstate/article_28b58044-a509-11e4-a4e5-abf596b964b3.html)
QuoteAs expected, carpools and vanpools have flocked to the Interstate 95 express lanes, which opened on Dec. 14.
Quote"We saw a high percentage of HOV users right off the bat," said Mike McGurk, spokesman for Transurban, the company that operates the electronically tolled lanes, which stretch 29 miles between Garrisonville and Edsall Road on Interstate 395.
QuoteJoe Stainsby, manager of the Vanpool Alliance Program, said they have seen a steady rise in interest in vanpools because of the express lanes.
QuoteThe alliance promotes vanpools as an option for commuters in Fredericksburg and Northern Virginia.
QuoteStainsby said there hasn't been a big increase in new vanpool riders, but he thinks once the toll "charges start hitting single-occupant vehicles who choose to pay to ride in the express lanes, that will change."
QuoteThe express lanes have variable tolls, ranging from 20 cents to 80 cents per mile.
QuoteVehicles carrying at least three people can use the lanes for free. Buses and motorcycles also can use the lanes for free.
QuoteMcGurk said it's too early for statistics on overall usage of the lanes, but added that Transurban should have those details in February.
QuoteThe high HOV use could come back to haunt Virginia taxpayers.
QuoteThe public—private project contract the state signed includes stipulations that could force Virginians to pay Transurban if non-toll-paying HOV traffic reaches certain thresholds.
On our way to the Caps game, we heard WTOP's traffic report say there was a wrong-way driver in the I-95 HO/T lanes today. Seems the cops got him before an accident occurred. Scary thing to visualize, though.
...and after getting home from the game, I see this on Twitter. Don't have any details, but this sounds ominous. I may ask Dr. Gridlock if he can find out anything.
Quote@VaDOTNOVA: @VAExpressLanes MT @GeauxAmes: @VaDOTNOVA Traffic entering express lanes @ Backlick Rd headed south are meeting one-way traffic headed north
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2015, 01:58:20 PM
On our way to the Caps game, we heard WTOP's traffic report say there was a wrong-way driver in the I-95 HO/T lanes today. Seems the cops got him before an accident occurred.
This bothers the Hades out of me. I do not recall this happening
even once going back 20 to 30 years (including the years when the HOV roadway ended at about where Va. 289 (f/k/a Va. 7900) crosses I-95).
A report like this should prompt a total shut-down of the 95 Express Lanes regardless of the revenue that Transurban might lose.
They have got to figure out what went wrong - this is a particularly dangerous situation [H/T NOAA] IMO.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2015, 01:58:20 PM
Scary thing to visualize, though.
Agreed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2015, 05:08:23 PM
...and after getting home from the game, I see this on Twitter. Don't have any details, but this sounds ominous. I may ask Dr. Gridlock if he can find out anything.
Quote@VaDOTNOVA: @VAExpressLanes MT @GeauxAmes: @VaDOTNOVA Traffic entering express lanes @ Backlick Rd headed south are meeting one-way traffic headed north
Please do ask Doctor Gridlock!
One of the concerns that I have never shared is the potential for confusion between the 495 Express Lanes (which run two-way operation unless one side is closed for some reason), and the 95 Express Lanes, which can only run one way operation.
Could someone have thought that since the 495 HOV/Toll lanes are two way, that must mean that the 95 HOV/Toll lanes have suddenly become a two-way operation?
I'm wondering if someone simply somehow made a wrong turn past the barriers. I have not checked out the new reversible ramp connecting to Alban Road and Boudinot Drive, which is where I assume the person who sent the tweet was referring to, but I believe the ramp ends/begins at a signalized intersection. That at least raises the possibility of someone making a wrong turn.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2015, 10:30:42 PM
I'm wondering if someone simply somehow made a wrong turn past the barriers. I have not checked out the new reversible ramp connecting to Alban Road and Boudinot Drive, which is where I assume the person who sent the tweet was referring to, but I believe the ramp ends/begins at a signalized intersection. That at least raises the possibility of someone making a wrong turn.
I have not looked at that entrance/exit ramp in during during a part of the day with sunlight.
In the dark, it looked (to me) to be pretty well barriered-off. The barriers at the reversible ramps at Shirlington Circle, Seminary Road, Turkeycock Run and at Va. 289 (old 7900) have
always worked well.
I noticed though that the barriers don't go all the way across, at least from the I-95 general purpose lanes. So even if the gates are down and lights are on, there is still an opportunity for a motorist to enter the lanes going the wrong way.
Not sure if that is true from the local roads to the express lanes. But if the gates don't go all the way across, that to me is a major issue. We see people try to go around RR crossing gates quite often. The same can, and could have, happen here.
I haven't heard back from either Dr. Gridlock or Channel 4's Adam Tuss. Dr. G does an online Q&A every Monday at noon. Link follows. Maybe if we all submit questions about it, the producer will give him one of them to answer.
http://live.washingtonpost.com/gridlock0202.html
Depending on how my afternoon shapes up, and on the weather, I might swing past there to see how it's configured.
Edited to add: BTW, don't bother with that link on an iPad. I just tried to submit a question using mine and the page was glacially slow, then Safari reported a "problem" with it and reloaded it before I finished typing my first sentence!
Link worked for me (on an iPad). Question asked.
Quote from: davewiecking on February 02, 2015, 08:44:18 AM
Link worked for me (on an iPad). Question asked.
Glad it worked for someone. I submitted a question via my PC. I've been having trouble with the Post's website for a couple of weeks now on my iPad and I don't know why. I assume it has something to do with the site's new design.
(I've had much better luck with the iPad Post App since version 3 came out last week. Crashed regularly in the weeks before that, and I uninstalled/reinstalled several times (which was only a temporary fix). But I posted today using Safari...)
Quote from: davewiecking on February 02, 2015, 11:45:05 AM
(I've had much better luck with the iPad Post App since version 3 came out last week. Crashed regularly in the weeks before that, and I uninstalled/reinstalled several times (which was only a temporary fix). But I posted today using Safari...)
I wasn't using the app, just Safari. I may have to try the app again.
Dr. Gridlock answered my question in his online discussion. See below.
Quote
Q: I-95 express lanes: Wrong-way drivers?
Yesterday while I was driving I heard a WTOP traffic report say that apparently there had been a wrong-way driver in the I-95 express lanes but that police caught him before there could be an accident. Later, however, I saw VDOT had retweeted something that seemed to imply people were entering the lanes southbound in Newington when the lanes were pointed northbound. Do you know anything about this? If any of it is true, I'm a bit surprised it's not a bigger story in the local media. The notion of traffic going the wrong way in there is scary, to say the least!
A: Robert Thomson
I didn't hear the WTOP report. I did see a Twitter message from VDOT to the express lanes that was a forward of a message from a traveler.
The traveler's message said: "Traffic entering express lanes @ Backlick Rd headed south are meeting one-way traffic headed north."
So this morning, I asked express lanes spokesman Mike McGurk if he would check on whether there was any problem with the express lanes ramp gates on Sunday.
He wrote back to say he had confirmed their was no problem with the gates: "All appropriate entry ramp gates were in the down position to prevent access."
I asked Virginia State Police spokeswoman Corinne Geller if she had any reports about drivers going the wrong way in the 95 Express Lanes on Sunday.
She checked through police reports, and said that at 5:43 p.m., state police had received a report that a tan Toyota was traveling south in the northbound lanes at Exit 166B. "By the time the trooper was able to get to there, no vehicle was located."
I think that might be too late in the day for those of you who heard something on a WTOP traffic report, and she's checking further.
Did any of you drivers actually see a vehicle going the wrong way, or an entry ramp with the gates up when they should have been down? As the commenter says, this indeed would be a big deal.
I must note the tweet I quoted further up the thread (and forwarded to Dr. Gridlock) was poorly-written at best. I've found some people use bizarre terminology when referring to the roads (referring to E-ZPass as a "speedpass" is one of the more straightforward ones I've heard), so who knows what the person was attempting to say.
Are there cameras in the area, and do they record and retain video (as opposed to just permitting live-viewing)?
If one can determine where the wrong-way drivers entered and the time, does VDOT allow that video to be distributed? Here in NJ, I believe video is held for 10 days, and for a fee, one can request video footage from a particular camera.
I think ALL of the 95 Express Lanes (as the 495 Express Lanes) are covered by video cameras.
Flashing yellow beacons have been installed at the south entrance of the 495 inner loop express lanes. But only on the last ENTRANCE overhead sign before you are in the express lanes. At highway speeds this gives a driver 2-3 seconds at most to decide on bailing. Because the entrance is around the curve, this sign is not visible from all that far in advance either.
IMO if this is in response to the fatal crash where the lady from SC stopped in the travel lane and subsequently got hit by another car, this won't do much. Beacons should be on the 2 or 3 overhead signs before the last one as well.
Mapmikey
I saw those were installed but hadn't yet seen them operating. Are they lit now?
Meanwhile, Channel 5 continues in their effort to invent an imaginary scandal for what they call "fines set by Transurban" (an inaccurate term because a fine is something entered by a court in a criminal case):
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/28006946/virginia-politicians-react-to-e-zpass-express-lane-fines
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26776372/man-gets-17000-e-zpass-fine-for-36-in-unpaid-express-lane-tolls
Rather transparent agenda when they're basically accusing the politicians of accepting bribes.
As I said before, I really don't understand the people who screw around and don't take the invoices seriously. People act like it's some sort of game. Seems to me ANY time you receive a bill saying you owe money you at least need to take it seriously and investigate.
Also as I said further back in this thread, it's not right that Virginia law does not compel Transurban at least to query the Virginia E-ZPass database for plate numbers before sending out bills. What's the point of registering your plate number on your account if the information won't be used? If indeed some form of transponder interoperability is on the horizon, this has to be addressed because it simply will not do for, say, a SunPass user to enter the E-ZPass facility and then receive a bill in the mail because (a) he didn't have an E-ZPass and (b) the toll operator refused to query the other systems' databases.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 04, 2015, 07:50:39 AM
I saw those were installed but hadn't yet seen them operating. Are they lit now?
Yes, they are indeed flashing yellow now
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 04, 2015, 08:10:01 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 04, 2015, 07:50:39 AM
I saw those were installed but hadn't yet seen them operating. Are they lit now?
Yes, they are indeed flashing yellow now
Thanks for the info. I haven't driven in that direction in about a week. I had wondered if they were to be active at all times or only when there was a need for a warning of some kind (though you'd think the latter would be coupled with a message board of some sort).
I forgot to mention them here just because I'd see them and then forget about them because they hadn't affected the driving experience in any way!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
Are there cameras in the area, and do they record and retain video (as opposed to just permitting live-viewing)?
If one can determine where the wrong-way drivers entered and the time, does VDOT allow that video to be distributed? Here in NJ, I believe video is held for 10 days, and for a fee, one can request video footage from a particular camera.
Belated response to this question. I think I may have found the answer in the course of responding to the "General Highway Talk" thread about the Washington State resident with the $18,000 toll bill.
The Virginia statute regarding release of personal information by HO/T lane operators provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
QuoteB. Information collected by a photo-enforcement system shall be limited exclusively to that information that is necessary for the collection of unpaid tolls. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all photographs, microphotographs, electronic images, or other data collected by a photo-enforcement system shall be used exclusively for the collection of unpaid tolls and shall not be (i) open to the public; (ii) sold or used for sales, solicitation, or marketing purposes; (iii) disclosed to any other entity except as may be necessary for the collection of unpaid tolls or to a vehicle owner or operator as part of a challenge to the imposition of a toll; or (iv) used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation of § 33.2-503 or upon order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Information collected under this section shall be purged and not retained later than 30 days after the collection and reconciliation of any unpaid tolls, administrative fees, or civil penalties. Any entity operating a photo-enforcement system shall annually certify compliance with this section and make all records pertaining to such system available for inspection and audit by the Commissioner of Highways or the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles or their designee. Any violation of this subsection constitutes a Class 1 misdemeanor. In addition to any fines or other penalties provided for by law, any money or other thing of value obtained as a result of a violation of this section shall be forfeited to the Commonwealth.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+33.2-504
But is the "photo enforcement system" the same as the traffic cameras available over the Internet? Sitting at home, I could conceivably save those images. If I were willing to go to the gawd-awful website, click on a camera icon, wait for the map to scroll itself downwards for no reason at all, then wait 20 seconds for an image to appear. Of course those images don't really allow me to identify a particular car, but I could probably tell if one is going the wrong way.
Quote from: davewiecking on February 05, 2015, 10:44:36 AM
But is the "photo enforcement system" the same as the traffic cameras available over the Internet? Sitting at home, I could conceivably save those images. If I were willing to go to the gawd-awful website, click on a camera icon, wait for the map to scroll itself downwards for no reason at all, then wait 20 seconds for an image to appear. Of course those images don't really allow me to identify a particular car, but I could probably tell if one is going the wrong way.
And in this case, it's not really necessary to know the vehicle that's going the wrong way, it's just necessary to know that a vehicle IS going the wrong way!
Dr. Gridlock in the Washington Post: New safety markers for 495 Express Lanes entrance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/02/10/new-safety-markers-for-495-express-lanes-entrance/)
QuoteDrivers will notice some new safety features at the 495 Express Lanes northbound entry point near the Springfield interchange. The goal is to help drivers make sure they are in the correct lane to enter the northbound 495 Express Lanes, said Michael McGurk, the express lanes spokesman.
QuoteThe 495 Express Lanes entry point is about a mile and a half west of the Springfield interchange on the left side of the Capital Beltway's inner loop.
QuoteAn overhead entrance sign with flashing lights now appears just before the start of the white bollards that divide the express and regular lanes. The sign reads, "ENTRANCE ONLY."
QuoteReflective pavement markers, raised slightly from the road surface, have been added for about a quarter-mile back from the start of the express lanes. This should enhance drivers' awareness that they are in the entry lanes, McGurk said.
I was on the Beltway earlier this afternoon heading to Fairfax. Did not notice any raised reflective markers.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 10, 2015, 02:59:27 PM
I was on the Beltway earlier this afternoon heading to Fairfax. Did not notice any raised reflective markers.
There are some reflectors on the dashed lines leading up to the entrance (no idea if they are brand new...wasn't paying attention to that before) but they look just like the ones on the regular lanes to me. They might be "raised" with respect to being on top of the pavement instead of sunken into the pavement as is common in many areas.
As I opined above, the flashing beacons are next to worthless being only on the last overhead sign.
So if they are done "improving" the entrance, they didn't accomplish much.
Mapmikey
I drove on the Beltway express lanes again yesterday en route to Fairfax and I kept my eyes out for reflectors. It looked like the short skip line located between the second lane from the left (becomes the right lane of the express lanes) and the third lane (becomes the left lane of the main carriageway) had more reflectors than one usually sees between skip lines, but as you say, they looked like the same sort of reflectors you see between skip lines in standard lanes except that there appeared to be more of them.
I'd have to go through there during the night to be able to see what, if any, difference they make, but I don't go that way at night very often. During the day they simply aren't noticeable and, frankly, if VDOT and Transurban think they will somehow help call drivers' attention to the lane configuration, I think they're mistaken. The description of "reflective pavement markers" had me envisioning something different that you could see during the day, although I'm not really sure what I envisioned them installing.
Those purple/white dashed lines used in other E-ZPass facilities would come in handy.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 12, 2015, 12:18:22 PM
Those purple/white dashed lines used in other E-ZPass facilities would come in handy.
Agreed. They do plan to put down pavement markings using the E-ZPass logo, but they have to wait until the weather warms up to above 45°F for more than a brief period. This weekend sounds like it definitely won't be that time!
Are the HO/T lanes on the I-95 being kept open during W.S. Octavia? If they are, who is performing the work necessary to keep them open?
What the heck is "W.S. Octavia"???
"W.S. Octavia" ist The Weather Chanel's name for the current snow storm.
The Weather Channel needs to quit it with that garbage. Winter storms do not have names.
People need to stop enabling them. You only feed TWC by using their names for winter storms.
I'm pretty sure they don't care. Hell, they're still fuming at losing DirecTV, and seemingly ignored all the negativity during the campaign when they asked people to write in to TWC and DirecTV about how much the station means to them, which was one of the primary reasons DirecTV went their own direction for a channel focused on weather. You don't want barely-weather-related programming? You don't want us to name winter storms? You hate our website where we scare you with some weather event nationwide and host numerous National Enquirer type stories? Well, we'll give you MORE of what you don't want! Wait, why won't DirecTV take us back???
An e-mail from Transurban this morning contained this graphic explaining how fees for unpaid tolls escalate. I thought this breaks it down fairly well. As I said before, I can't begin to fathom how people simply ignore the invoices.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F9531ff877ee50a0c947da1b20b4ff5c6_zps144641fe.jpg&hash=d36f05094bf543d06003be94007ea61704cf7cff)
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2015, 08:57:47 AM
An e-mail from Transurban this morning contained this graphic explaining how fees for unpaid tolls escalate. I thought this breaks it down fairly well. As I said before, I can't begin to fathom how people simply ignore the invoices.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F9531ff877ee50a0c947da1b20b4ff5c6_zps144641fe.jpg&hash=d36f05094bf543d06003be94007ea61704cf7cff)
Thanks for sharing this.
The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg): Getting there: Slugs and Express Lanes make an odd but nice couple (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/getting-there-slugs-and-express-lanes-make-an-odd-but/article_56e5e323-c66f-5a95-90df-5fc67402d81c.html)
QuoteIt makes perfect sense, but the growing synergy between the Interstate 95 express lanes and slugs has created one odd couple.
QuoteOn the one hand, there is the strictly managed I—95 toll system. On the other hand, there is the unofficial commuter group that runs on its own unmanaged system with unwritten rules.
QuoteBut the coupling is obviously working, as the potential emergence of a new slug line forming at the Staffordboro commuter lot in Garrisonville indicates.
I always thought the slugging community's complaints about the HO/T lanes didn't make a lot of sense. They feared drivers would stop picking up slugs. I found that illogical because it seems to me if you're already picking up slugs, there's no reason why you'd stop doing so if it means you can get a free ride. That is, you clearly don't mind taking strangers in your car and putting up with people who wear too much perfume or have bad BO or whatever, so the fact that you can now pay a toll to avoid picking up slugs shouldn't really be much disincentive to continuing to pick people up except maybe on a day when you're running late.
If anything, slugging ought to expand to later hours if both drivers and riders can be confident of finding each other outside the old HOV hours. That's the sort of thing that just takes time to develop.
InsideNoVA.com: Editorial: 95 Express Lanes: So far, so good? (http://www.insidenova.com/opinion/editorial-express-lanes-so-far-so-good/article_11460a50-bd00-11e4-a36e-5f4c54724112.html)
QuoteOne month in and the 95 Express Lanes from Alexandria to Stafford are bringing in $103,000 in daily weekday revenue and logging just over 37,000 weekday trips.
QuoteAnd guess what? Despite the complaints about highway robbery, it seems the toll lanes really are easing traffic on Interstate 95 between Alexandria and Stafford.
QuoteAccording to data released by Transurban, the company that built the lanes, the average dynamic toll price on the 95 Express Lanes is $4.01. That price, of course, varies wildly — and has gone as high as $9.75 for just a few miles. The dynamic tolls are based on demand, so the more drivers who bail from the main lanes, the higher the prices go.
QuoteBut for many weary commuters, it's worth it.
Quote"My nightly commute went from an hour or more to 30 minutes. I'll pay the money to drive at a steady pace," Tabetha Phelps Fletcher wrote on InsideNoVa's Facebook page. "The most I've paid is little over $6 from Springfield to Dale Boulevard and that's on a bad day."
After about 25 commutes since the lanes opened (I work 4-10s and I also took two weeks off in Jan) I have the following observations...
Before, at least half my afternoon commute times reached 2 hrs and I was lucky to get any around the 1:45 mark. Since, I've had zero 2-hr commutes and 90 minutes is achievable most days.
I have gotten stuck in a queue trying to exit the express lanes at the south end exactly once. Most of the time the merge/weave with the main line is done at 40-45 mph.
Traffic south of the merge is no longer wide open like it used to be. Average speeds down to Exit 133 US 17 are 30 mph. The mainline runs much better from Woodbridge to Triangle and from there to Garrisonville is a mixed bag.
In the morning, the delays at Garrisonville approaching the entrance are minimal (though the Fredericksburg paper says later in the morning it gets worse). The NB delay I initially noticed from Exit 158 VA 294 south to Exit 156 (or further south) is apparently the new dynamic and I actually use the toll lanes from Cardinal Dr to the Beltway now.
The cost for me, as I also use the 495 toll lanes in the afternoon, runs $15-20 per day but it is worth it to me.
I will be going to work on a Friday next week for the first time since the lanes opened...wondering if Friday afternoons are different from my current experiences.
Mapmikey
WTOP Radio: Judge delays ruling on landmark Express Lanes case (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2015/03/judge-delays-ruling-on-landmark-express-lanes-case/)
QuoteFAIRFAX, Va. – A Fairfax County Circuit Court judge heard oral arguments on Friday on a landmark case about the 495 and 95 Express Lanes, but told lawyers that he won't issue a written ruling for a few weeks.
QuoteChief Judge Dennis J. Smith is examining the law behind the Express Lanes and how Transurban enforces the law to determine whether it is constitutional, legal or within his interpretation of the statute.
QuoteDefendant Toni Cooley is facing more than $2,200 in fees and penalties after unpaid toll trips in late 2012. She accrued 11 unpaid trips because she commutes on the toll road, often twice a day to and from work. Cooley paid the original tolls within 60 days, but refused to pay administrative fees and civil penalties.
Quote"I think these fees are very excessive. You don't know your transponder is not working properly and these penalties keep adding up and up," says Cooley.
QuoteTransurban originally charged her with $10,692 in fines, but eventually lowered their request to $2,200.
QuoteCooley's attorney Marla Diaz argued before the court that the fines were excessive and violated both the 8th Amendment and the Virginia Constitution. Smith questioned Transurban attorney Caleb Kershner on the matter, although it's unclear which way he'd rule.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 12, 2015, 01:19:50 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 12, 2015, 12:18:22 PM
Those purple/white dashed lines used in other E-ZPass facilities would come in handy.
Agreed. They do plan to put down pavement markings using the E-ZPass logo, but they have to wait until the weather warms up to above 45°F for more than a brief period. This weekend sounds like it definitely won't be that time!
The pavement markings were put down day before yesterday. They are in 2 places: 1 mile and 3/4 mile from the entrance
Mapmikey
Finally had to go to work on a Friday yesterday for the first time since the express lanes were opened...
Traffic on mainline 95 was terrible...nearly continuously backed up SB from Exit 158 to Exit 140. I took the toll lanes and sailed down to Dumfries. The queue for the end of the toll lanes began just south of the last exit (to access SR 619 Triangle/Quantico). So I elected to use this flyover. In previous experience with the HOV lanes was that once they had backed up a couple miles it was faster to approach the merging area of the HOV/regular lanes using the mainline 95 lanes instead. Turns out this is still true with the extended express lanes.
My overall trip home was right at 2 hrs but Friday commutes using only mainline 495 and 95 south were routinely running 2.5-3 hrs before. So the express lanes still benefit folks on Fridays and my commute remains mostly magical.
Incidentally, the toll on the southernmost segment of I-95 (Dale City to Garrisonville) was $11 when I passed through (only $2 to get off at the SR 619 flyover), so the fact that a long queue exists seems to help drive up the toll. I for one would be annoyed to have paid $9 to have sat in a slow 6 mile line to get out. So I hope mostly carpoolers were the ones who did that...
In somewhat related news, all the ramps in the Springfield Interchange 95/395/495 are now labeled with markers that look like standard interstate mile markers. instead of 'MILE' it says 'RAMP' and instead of a mile number there is a letter. The letters go up to at least T.
Mapmikey
Fitch Ratings: Fitch Affirms 95 Express Lanes, LLC's Revs at 'BBB-'; Outlook Stable (https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/press_releases/detail.cfm?pr_id=982134)
QuoteThe ratings reflect the newly opened managed lanes (ML) project's location within a congested commuting corridor along highly urbanized counties in Northern Virginia/Washington, D.C. area. In Fitch's view, regional macroeconomic demographics remain sound and early ML ramp-up performance continues to support prospects to yield toll revenues in-line with Fitch cases at closing. The project's $35 million ramp-up reserve and the flexibility offered by the debt structure provide added protection during ramp-up. The rating affirmations reflect the completion of construction works at the end of December 2014, on schedule and on budget.
QuoteSolid Service Area with Strong Commuter Base - Revenue Risk (Volume): Midrange
QuoteThe strategic location of the project in a service area with high wealth levels and limited viable alternatives for commuters is a key strength. The general purpose lanes have high levels of congestion in peak commuting periods. While MLs projects are more sensitive to economic downturn, this risk is partially offset by strong regional demographics, high congestion levels and the relative stability of traffic volumes during the recent recession. MLs operate in the same direction as, and on similar schedule to, the previous reversible high occupancy lanes (HOV).Growing familiarity with MLs in the area in conjunction with only moderate increase in overall capacity (about 17%) somewhat mitigates ramp-up risk attributed to multiple access and egress points along the project and lane reversibility. While the project is exposed to elevated volumes of toll-free vehicles with three passengers or more (HOV3+), this risk is partially mitigated by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) compensation provisions when certain thresholds are exceeded.
Dr. Gridlock reports Transurban are tweaking the messages on the signs prior to the flyover near the exit for Triangle: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/04/03/easter-getaway-rain-causing-i-95-congestion/
Quote
....
If the congestion worsened, making the choice less of a judgment call, the express lanes controllers might intensify the sign message to something like, "Exit now to avoid delays."
They began using the sign for this purpose only this week, and they're still working on the best language to use in the message. They want the advisory to be clear and effective for drivers. Michael McGurk, spokesman for the express lanes, said the company would appreciate driver feedback on the most effective and helpful wording.
....
Quote
....
If the congestion worsened, making the choice less of a judgment call, the express lanes controllers might intensify the sign message to something like, "Exit now to avoid delays."
They began using the sign for this purpose only this week, and they're still working on the best language to use in the message. They want the advisory to be clear and effective for drivers. Michael McGurk, spokesman for the express lanes, said the company would appreciate driver feedback on the most effective and helpful wording.
....
This exact message was on the VMS yesterday. Seems pretty clear to me.
Mapmikey
Per today's Washington Post, a Fairfax County judge this week dismissed on appeal a Transurban suit against a commuter on the I-495 express lanes for non-payment of tolls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/judge-drops-case-of-woman-accused-of-failing-to-pay-beltway-express-lane-tolls/2015/04/09/b07cd8c0-de29-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz).
As described by the Post (I haven't read the judge's ruling). the issue was whether the statute of limitations was two years as Transurban claimed, or rather just one year (which would leave Transurban out of luck in this instance). The judge said Transurban had only one year, so the commuter was let off the hook.
This might immediately benefit other commuters who've also been sued by Transurban, but also push Transurban to file suit more quickly against other drivers to make sure it doesn't file too late.
Quote from: oscar on April 09, 2015, 01:56:27 PM
Per today's Washington Post, a Fairfax County judge this week dismissed on appeal a Transurban suit against a commuter on the I-495 express lanes for non-payment of tolls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/judge-drops-case-of-woman-accused-of-failing-to-pay-beltway-express-lane-tolls/2015/04/09/b07cd8c0-de29-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz).
As described by the Post (I haven't read the judge's ruling). the issue was whether the statute of limitations was two years as Transurban claimed, or rather just one year (which would leave Transurban out of luck in this instance). The judge said Transurban had only one year, so the commuter was let off the hook.
This might immediately benefit other commuters who've also been sued by Transurban, but also push Transurban to file suit more quickly against other drivers to make sure it doesn't file too late.
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what the 'criminal' part is in failing to pay a traffic fline.
Actually, this may be bad news for commuters, not good news. If they decide that failure to pay fines are a criminal matter, that stuff can go on your permanent record if Transurban has to bring you into court and the judge finds in favor of Transurban. If you apply for a job, you're supposed to list if you've been found guilty of a crime. They don't ask on applications for driving penalties - which are civil in nature. If you get in legal trouble later, they'll going to want to know your criminal history. Civil fines for not having EZ Pass would've been overlooked. Now they may be taken into consideration.
So now instead of it being a civil penalty for failure to pay tolls, it may now be regarded as a criminal matter for toll evasion, stealing, etc.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2015, 02:11:50 PM
Quote from: oscar on April 09, 2015, 01:56:27 PM
Per today's Washington Post, a Fairfax County judge this week dismissed on appeal a Transurban suit against a commuter on the I-495 express lanes for non-payment of tolls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/judge-drops-case-of-woman-accused-of-failing-to-pay-beltway-express-lane-tolls/2015/04/09/b07cd8c0-de29-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz).
As described by the Post (I haven't read the judge's ruling). the issue was whether the statute of limitations was two years as Transurban claimed, or rather just one year (which would leave Transurban out of luck in this instance). The judge said Transurban had only one year, so the commuter was let off the hook.
This might immediately benefit other commuters who've also been sued by Transurban, but also push Transurban to file suit more quickly against other drivers to make sure it doesn't file too late.
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what the 'criminal' part is in failing to pay a traffic fline.
Actually, this may be bad news for commuters, not good news. If they decide that failure to pay fines are a criminal matter, that stuff can go on your permanent record if Transurban has to bring you into court and the judge finds in favor of Transurban. If you apply for a job, you're supposed to list if you've been found guilty of a crime. They don't ask on applications for driving penalties - which are civil in nature. If you get in legal trouble later, they'll going to want to know your criminal history. Civil fines for not having EZ Pass would've been overlooked. Now they may be taken into consideration.
So now instead of it being a civil penalty for failure to pay tolls, it may now be regarded as a criminal matter for toll evasion, stealing, etc.
Not having read the ruling, it sounds like commuters might end up having it both ways. They would benefit from the shorter criminal statute of limitations, but since Transurban can't conduct criminal prosecutions (only the state can do that), its lawsuits won't affect anyone's criminal record.
Transurban might be able to appeal, all the way to the state Supreme Court if necessary. It ain't over 'til it's over.
Quote from: oscar on April 09, 2015, 01:56:27 PM
This might immediately benefit other commuters who've also been sued by Transurban, but also push Transurban to file suit more quickly against other drivers to make sure it doesn't file too late.
Or maybe just settle-up with these people?
Or, learn how to bill people. Matching "no read" plate photos with the E-ZPass database to debit the correct account like most other toll agencies do would be a good start. This technology isn't new, this business of running a toll road isn't new, they should have figured this out already. This is likely one instance that public toll road authorities have an advantage, they can usually suspend motor vehicle registrations (in their jurisdiction) for non-payment.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 09, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
Or, learn how to bill people. Matching "no read" plate photos with the E-ZPass database to debit the correct account like most other toll agencies do would be a good start. This technology isn't new, this business of running a toll road isn't new, they should have figured this out already.
Agreed on all points. MDTA has been doing it since the first section of Md. 200 opened some years ago.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 09, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
This is likely one instance that public toll road authorities have an advantage, they can usually suspend motor vehicle registrations (in their jurisdiction) for non-payment.
And while suspending registration is a hassle (especially if someone wants to renew their registration and cannot), it is a lot less expensive than taking people to court.
I have not gotten to read any of it. Just started a new job this week and have had no time (plus no Internet access at the office and phone usage not allowed). But I don't follow how it can be criminal if Transurban, rather than the Commonwealth's Attorney (what would be the DA in New York), is bringing the action.
This clearly isn't over. I suspect it'll wind up before the Virginia Supreme Court. But it is absolutely ridiculous that they don't query the E-ZPass database.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 09, 2015, 08:33:20 PM
I have not gotten to read any of it. Just started a new job this week and have had no time (plus no Internet access at the office and phone usage not allowed). But I don't follow how it can be criminal if Transurban, rather than the Commonwealth's Attorney (what would be the DA in New York), is bringing the action.
Is it even legal for a state to delegate its powers of criminal prosecution to a private corporation? In Virginia or in any other state?
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 09, 2015, 08:33:20 PM
This clearly isn't over. I suspect it'll wind up before the Virginia Supreme Court. But it is absolutely ridiculous that they don't query the E-ZPass database.
All correct. And not looking up tag numbers
first is contrary to what I will call good toll road management practices.
This morning's Washington Post has a one-paragraph article saying there was a head-on collision in the I-395 HOV lanes just north of Duke Street last Thursday night (the HOV lanes, not the HO/T portion). Someone was going north when the lanes were pointed south. Article does not say how the person got in there going the wrong way.
While that area isn't part of the HO/T lanes, I understand Transurban bears responsibility for all gates along the reversible roadway all the way up to the Pentagon. Be interesting to hear what happened in this case.
(Edited: It was Thursday night, not last night, and according to Channel 4 the cops don't know how the guy got in there going the wrong way.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 11, 2015, 10:32:00 AM
This morning's Washington Post has a one-paragraph article saying there was a head-on collision in the I-395 HOV lanes just north of Duke Street last night (the HOV lanes, not the HO/T portion). Someone was going north when the lanes were pointed south. Article does not say how the person got in there going the wrong way.
While that area isn't part of the HO/T lanes, I understand Transurban bears responsibility for all gates along the reversible roadway all the way up to the Pentagon. Be interesting to hear what happened in this case.
Always possible for someone to enter the lanes going the correct direction, and then making an incredibly stupid and/or drunken U-turn. I don't know if other wrong-ways have followed that scenario, but it seems a realistic one, and hard to prevent.
Yeah, and it's possible in a few places to drive around the barriers. You'd have to do it very slowly, but it's possible to squeeze by. No system is ever going to be 100% perfect. After all, someone could just smash through the barriers too, though if that had happened I assume it would have been in the paper.
Though the reason this attracted my attention (beyond the tragic loss of life) was that such crashes have been (virtually) unheard-of since the reversible lanes opened in their present configuration in the 1970's between (roughly) present-day Va. 289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway) [road was not built unto the 1990's] and the Potomac River at the 14th Street Bridge complex.
Yesterday morning on the GGW listserv (which I'm a part of since I occasionally contribute to GGW), someone commented that the price for the Inner Loop HO/T lanes was up to $14.45 around 8am. Is this a new high?
Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2015, 07:50:04 AM
Yesterday morning on the GGW listserv (which I'm a part of since I occasionally contribute to GGW), someone commented that the price for the Inner Loop HO/T lanes was up to $14.45 around 8am. Is this a new high?
I have not seen it that high, but I don't drive there every day. The most I have personally observed was between $7 and $8, southbound on a stormy weekday afternoon.
Washington Post: Class-action suit claims predatory toll scheme on 495 Express Lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/class-action-suit-claims-predatory-toll-scheme-on-495-express-lanes/2015/04/16/a9d1bdf8-e467-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html)
QuoteThe company that manages the Interstate 495 toll lanes in Northern Virginia is socking violators with "unfair, illegal and unconscionable" fines and fees that have reached tens of thousands of dollars in some cases, according to a class-action lawsuit announced this week.
QuoteThe suit, which was filed in federal court in Alexandria, claims that Transurban uses a predatory scheme because the Capital Beltway express lanes have not been as profitable as expected and some drivers are being hit with violations that never occurred.
Quote"We all live in the area and have friends and family that have had problems with the toll lanes," said Jeffrey Kaliel, an attorney with the firm Tycko & Zavareei. "It's not run in a way that's appropriate. It's hurting a lot of people that never meant to run a toll."
QuoteA Transurban spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the company had not seen it. But he generally defended Transurban's toll practices on the 14-mile stretch of lanes that runs from the Springfield Interchange past the Dulles Toll Road.
Washington Post: Drivers debate what's to like (or not) about Virginia's HOT lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/drivers-debate-whats-to-like-or-not-about-virginias-hot-lanes/2015/04/29/1b695e2e-e852-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html)
QuoteMy father was a civil engineer, so I start out with some sympathy towards people who build roads, but the folks who did the new HOT lanes on I-95 south to Aquia, not so much.
Quoteproblem with paying tolls on the new miles. Got to pay for them. No question. But: The express lanes from I-395 to where they used to end, down near Triangle, were built with my tax money.
QuoteI resent having to pay tolls, and pretty steep tolls to boot, to use them outside the rush hours. I am sort of okay with paying tolls in rush hour (3:30-6 p.m. southbound) if I do not have three passengers, but they used to be free in non-rush hours and should still be free then.
QuoteMy greatest complaint is the way the new lanes terminate a half-mile short of Exit 143 at Garrisonville/Aquia. As it is, dumping the HOT traffic back onto the main line backs the main line up nine miles in rush hour, and the HOT lanes just a little less. This is simply bad design and needs to be corrected.
QuoteNext problem is that where I would get on the HOT lanes on I-395 or from I-495, the signs give the toll rates only to the nearest three exits. They do not tell the tolls to the terminus at Aquia. I am just not going to get on those lanes without knowing the cost. I just won't.
QuoteThe HOT lanes have made the mess on I-95 worse, not better.
I saw that letter in yesterday's paper and thought it sounded rather childish, especially that paragraph about "I am just not going to get on those lanes .... I just won't."
Dr. Gridlock did a poor job in his response of explaining WHY the segment-based tolling is in use, though. All he said was that it's segment-based. Transurban has never really tried to explain this well either. I think Mapmikey came up with the best short explanation somewhere earlier in this thread when he noted that you can't manage congestion via pricing if you post a toll for an area the driver won't reach for almost half an hour, which is what would be the case if they posted a toll to the lanes' other terminus.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2015, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 09, 2015, 08:33:20 PM
I have not gotten to read any of it. Just started a new job this week and have had no time (plus no Internet access at the office and phone usage not allowed). But I don't follow how it can be criminal if Transurban, rather than the Commonwealth's Attorney (what would be the DA in New York), is bringing the action.
Is it even legal for a state to delegate its powers of criminal prosecution to a private corporation? In Virginia or in any other state?
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 09, 2015, 08:33:20 PM
This clearly isn't over. I suspect it'll wind up before the Virginia Supreme Court. But it is absolutely ridiculous that they don't query the E-ZPass database.
All correct. And not looking up tag numbers first is contrary to what I will call good toll road management practices.
I don't know if this would be a valid comparison, but when I lived near NN shipyard 1991-1996, any process serving to an employee if NN Shipbuilding, by state law was handled by shipyard security, process servers, sheriffs with warrants and such, could not go on shipyard property to serve.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 04, 2015, 07:33:33 AM
I saw that letter in yesterday's paper and thought it sounded rather childish, especially that paragraph about "I am just not going to get on those lanes .... I just won't."
Dr. Gridlock did a poor job in his response of explaining WHY the segment-based tolling is in use, though. All he said was that it's segment-based. Transurban has never really tried to explain this well either. I think Mapmikey came up with the best short explanation somewhere earlier in this thread when he noted that you can't manage congestion via pricing if you post a toll for an area the driver won't reach for almost half an hour, which is what would be the case if they posted a toll to the lanes' other terminus.
If people want to blame anyone for the PPTA projects like the 495 and 95 HOV/Toll lanes and other private projects around the Commonwealth (such as the Elizabeth River crossings and the Dulles Greenway), then they need to be pointed in the direction of Richmond, where the General Assembly has stonewalled any increase in motor fuel tax rates for decades, and at ex-Gov. George Felix Allen for getting the PPTA passed through the General Assembly in the first place, under the guise of private funding entirely displacing the need for ever increasing the tax on motor fuels (it was one of the justifications cited when it was proposed in 1994 or 1995).
WTOP Radio: Women launch website targeting Express Lane fines (http://wtop.com/ticketbuster/2015/05/women-launch-website-targeting-express-lane-fines/)
QuoteTwo Northern Virginia women profiled on WTOP have come together to launch a new website to protest the fines and penalties on the Express Lanes. In some cases, the fines can be thousands of dollars.
QuoteToni Cooley and Lisa Marie Comras launched Drivers4Change.org (http://www.drivers4change.org/) because they want a conversation to begin on how to restore fairness to the process.
Quote"Basically what they did is they took the HOV law and copied it over to the HOT (high occupancy toll) Lanes statute. But when you commit an HOV violation, a trooper pulls you over and writes you a ticket. You know you've committed a violation and if you do it again, the fines go up. You don't know that on the HOT Lanes," says Cooley.
Yesterday the toll for 95 Express Lanes SB on the last segment (Dale City to Garrisonville) was a little over $14 (about 5:15 pm).
But there was very little queue at the end to get back onto mainline 95.
Last week when there was an 8 mile queue (bus wreck at the end of the flyover in Garrisonville), this segment was only $11.
Earlier this week this segment was under $5 one day.
Other than the queues that sometimes form it is difficult to discern that the road is busier or not on any given day to compare to the prices that are in place...
Mapmikey
WTOP Radio: Drivers winning in court against Express Lanes operator (http://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2015/05/drivers-benefiting-in-court-against-express-lanes-operator/)
QuoteFAIRFAX, Va. – Six drivers saw their unpaid-toll cases dismissed in Fairfax County General District Court on Monday, while the final ruling on another landmark case has been delayed due to a last-minute motion.
QuoteCircuit Court Judge Dennis J. Smith ruled in April that Express Lanes operator Transurban must sue drivers for unpaid tolls within a year. Toni Cooley, Jim Diller and Stuart Holmes all won their cases with the decision, and the fallout has been felt ever since – six cases were dismissed on Monday because Transurban waited too long to sue, and more will likely be dismissed in the coming weeks.
Toll on the Dale City to Garrisonville segment SB at about 4:30 this afternoon was $16.45. The queue to get back onto mainline 95 was about 1/3 mile.
There was a VMS in Woodbridge for mainline 95 saying that the 20 miles to SR 610 Garrisonville would take 54 minutes. Using the toll lanes it took about 25.
Normally the Thursday afternoon commute on a holiday weekend would run 2.5-3 hrs for me. Today it took 1.75 hrs.
I am now averaging less than 1 2-hr commute a month (versus 2-3 per week before...)
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 21, 2015, 06:37:01 PM
Toll on the Dale City to Garrisonville segment SB at about 4:30 this afternoon was $16.45. The queue to get back onto mainline 95 was about 1/3 mile.
Wonder if Transurban will dare to raise the price even more?
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 21, 2015, 06:37:01 PM
There was a VMS in Woodbridge for mainline 95 saying that the 20 miles to SR 610 Garrisonville would take 54 minutes. Using the toll lanes it took about 25.
Normally the Thursday afternoon commute on a holiday weekend would run 2.5-3 hrs for me. Today it took 1.75 hrs.
I am now averaging less than 1 2-hr commute a month (versus 2-3 per week before...)
Clearly you are saving time. Any idea if you are saving money on fuel?
The toll was only about $5 on this segment on Monday. It was definitely pretty busy today but still driveable at 75 for 95% of it.
Once in a blue moon I can get all 4 weekly commutes on a tank of gas. That has not changed. it's probably a wash with replacing frequent stop-and-go with running 70-75 for much of the distance now.
Mike
If anyone's heading southbound on I-95 this afternoon, let us know how the tolls go with the holiday weekend. This is what I'd consider the first real "travel holiday" since tolling operations began. (New Year's didn't count in my mind because so many people take the whole week off, and I don't count Easter because I don't think the level of travel is nearly comparable to Memorial Day.) If you go back to the very first post in this thread, "mtantillo" raised some interesting questions about out-of-town traffic passing through and whether the occasional user might be more likely to shrug off the toll compared to someone who uses it daily. Certainly there's likely to be a higher volume for a longer period of time than you see on a normal Friday, and that pattern is likely to remain (though on a different time cycle since many offices will close early today) throughout the summer.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 22, 2015, 07:14:42 AM
If anyone's heading southbound on I-95 this afternoon, let us know how the tolls go with the holiday weekend. This is what I'd consider the first real "travel holiday" since tolling operations began. (New Year's didn't count in my mind because so many people take the whole week off, and I don't count Easter because I don't think the level of travel is nearly comparable to Memorial Day.) If you go back to the very first post in this thread, "mtantillo" raised some interesting questions about out-of-town traffic passing through and whether the occasional user might be more likely to shrug off the toll compared to someone who uses it daily. Certainly there's likely to be a higher volume for a longer period of time than you see on a normal Friday, and that pattern is likely to remain (though on a different time cycle since many offices will close early today) throughout the summer.
Another reason why the Transurban 95 Express Lanes need to be extended south to Fredericksburg or, even better, to Massaponax.
Washington Post: If we pay to build new HOT lanes, they might be a better deal for commuters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/if-we-pay-to-build-new-hot-lanes-they-might-be-a-better-deal-for-commuters/2015/05/21/117b7096-ffc7-11e4-8b6c-0dcce21e223d_story.html)
I wonder, would the problem at the southern end be alleviated–I deliberately chose not to say "solved"–if there were a single-lane extension that merged into the mainline on the left beyond Exit 143? That way traffic bound for that exit (which has a thriving slug lot) could use the existing flyover, but thru traffic could bypass it and avoid the weave area caused by the flyover's proximity to the interchange.
I know left-side merges are bad and the old one at Dumfries was a problem. In this case, there would at least be two options for how to rejoin the main line.
Just a thought I had. I haven't been through there southbound in several months and I intend to avoid southbound travel beyond Woodbridge this weekend!
Is there any web-site or APP where one can monitor how the toll rates change during this afternoon?
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 22, 2015, 10:21:17 AM
I wonder, would the problem at the southern end be alleviated–I deliberately chose not to say "solved"–if there were a single-lane extension that merged into the mainline on the left beyond Exit 143? That way traffic bound for that exit (which has a thriving slug lot) could use the existing flyover, but thru traffic could bypass it and avoid the weave area caused by the flyover's proximity to the interchange.
I know left-side merges are bad and the old one at Dumfries was a problem. In this case, there would at least be two options for how to rejoin the main line.
Just a thought I had. I haven't been through there southbound in several months and I intend to avoid southbound travel beyond Woodbridge this weekend!
Take a page from the NJ Turnpike manual as to how to merge 6 lanes down to 3 lanes.
The biggest issue will be, unlike the Turnpike's dual-dual section, the HOT lanes aren't in use at all times, so there will be plenty of time where the general use lanes will be impacted from the HOT lanes merging in.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 22, 2015, 10:46:05 AM
Is there any web-site or APP where one can monitor how the toll rates change during this afternoon?
Go to http://www.expresslanes.com. It's on there somewhere. It won't tell you precise tolls–instead it shows what the signs say. Hence why I don't plan to bother, plus it's just too nice a day to do that. I finished work at 11:00 and just walked from Vermont and L to the Kennedy Center. Glorious day for it, not a single cloud in the sky and it feels more like early April than Memorial Day Weekend.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 22, 2015, 11:51:26 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 22, 2015, 10:46:05 AM
Is there any web-site or APP where one can monitor how the toll rates change during this afternoon?
Go to http://www.expresslanes.com. It's on there somewhere. It won't tell you precise tolls–instead it shows what the signs say. Hence why I don't plan to bother, plus it's just too nice a day to do that. I finished work at 11:00 and just walked from Vermont and L to the Kennedy Center. Glorious day for it, not a single cloud in the sky and it feels more like early April than Memorial Day Weekend.
I clicked on one of the southbound VMS graphics and it listed 95-610 as $9.10. 30 seconds later, I clicked one further south and it displayed $13.20. The original one I clicked went up to match the $13.20 as well. When I click on the graphic north of the Occoquan River, it lists 95-Dale as $3.10. So what is the rate you pay for taking the entire length? I assume you pay one price for the northern segment and another for the southern segment even if you never leave the Express lanes. So would it be $16.30 in total?
Nevermind, I answered my question by plugging in I-95 near Franconia as the entry point and I-95 near Garrisonville Road as the exit point. I can think of many other things I'd rather spend $20 on...
QuoteYour estimated trip price and duration is:
95 Express Lanes $20.15 23min
Please Note: This price and duration are subject to change within the next five minutes and may not be what you see on the road
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/what_20_bucks_gets_you.jpg)
Screenshot of the traffic cam at the south end.
Based on that picture, they are getting plenty of time to use the HOT lanes. Wonder if it was worth the price of admission...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 22, 2015, 12:25:42 PM
Based on that picture, they are getting plenty of time to use the HOT lanes. Wonder if it was worth the price of admission...
$20 just to get screwed by the 6 lanes to 3 lanes merge? Nah, only the New Jersey Turnpike can handle situations like that (and be cheaper!).
It's really a 5-lanes-to-3, as the mainline drops to 3 lanes at VA 123 and the HO/T lanes drop their 3rd lane at the following exit (VA 294).
Quote from: Zeffy on May 22, 2015, 12:34:06 PM
$20 just to get screwed by the 6 lanes to 3 lanes merge? Nah, only the New Jersey Turnpike can handle situations like that (and be cheaper!).
Plus you get to fight exiting traffic at Garrisonville Rd./610. Are there any plans in the works to construct a small slip ramp from the express lanes to the left lane of I-95 there? Also, no matter what the price is for the southern segment, HOV/Flex users are likely going to drive the lanes to the end anyway since its no extra cost to them (demand destruction need not apply to that portion of traffic).
Per http://www.expresslanes.com it is now $18.10 for the southern segment.
The camera at Triangle shows it still wide open. From experience I know that if the VMS in the toll lanes right before the flyover for SR 619 says the delay begins in 4 miles (about half the remaining distance of the toll lanes), it is still faster to use them. you start then running into the idea of balancing slightly faster versus the cost to do so. But the toll does not always indicate how long the queue is. If the queue reaches back to the SR 619 flyover (toll was ~$12 IIRC) it was way faster to get back into the mainline at SR 619.
Last two days the toll lane VMS has been warning of heavy traffic from Quantico to Garrisonville from Thur-Sat.
The photo of the south end earlier this afternoon does not really show if the queue is abnormal or not. It was further than the picture shows yesterday and I saved 1/2 hour just between Woodbridge and Garrisonville by staying in the toll lanes. I have seen tolls well under $10 but the queue was 2 miles.
VDOT is interested in adding a 4th mainline lane (in design and subject to the new House Bill 2 prioritization study) from Garrisonville to Centreport Pkwy. It would make sense to have the toll lanes become the left through lane when they build it.
The weave with the current configuration is slower than it was when it first opened. 95 backs up from VA 3 and US 17 Falmouth for a lot of the highway north from Garrisonville.
Mike
I just got home from a run to the stores. About 20 minutes ago it was $3.05 from Turkeycock to "Backlick" (the end of the first segment). I paid it anyway to get from Landmark to the Franconia-Springfield Parkway, as I already knew Van Dorn was a mess (box-blockers galore at the Beltway) and the main line was crawling. The sign listed $5.10 from there to 95-DALE. I assume the southern segment was probably higher than the $18.10 Mapmikey cites, as his post was over an hour ago.
At about 12:15 on the way home from work, we paid $1.25 from Turkeycock to Route 644. The sign was listing around $4.00 for the next segment to 95-DALE. Traffic on the whole wasn't too bad yet at that point except near the Watergate in DC (understandable due to the lane closures associated with the car park collapse).
(Edited to fix a typo)
Letter to the Editor in the Washington Post: HOT lanes are causing, not easing, traffic headaches (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hot-lanes-are-causing-not-easing-traffic-headaches/2015/05/21/46230c66-fe3f-11e4-8c77-bf274685e1df_story.html)
QuoteI am glad the administration of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) has refocused the state Department of Transportation on good business practices that provide taxpayer value and away from the ideologically driven policies of the past, which have led to public-private partnerships for high-occupancy toll, or HOT, lanes. ["Va. control of I-66 project could net millions," Metro, May 19].
QuoteTraffic has gotten worse on Interstate 95's non-HOT lanes outside of rush hour . Drivers with only one passenger or no passengers have lost the privilege of using two highway lanes unless they are willing – and able – to pay. Also, with the HOT lane exits configured to assist certain travel patterns, rush-hour congestion seems to last longer and traffic worsens on secondary roads in the afternoons and late mornings. I shudder to think of the effect that weekend beach traffic will have on the region.
Seen on Twitter about 15 minutes ago. Inner Loop in Springfield. Apparently there were nails or screws or something spilled in the "free" lanes that caused a mega-problem
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FA74850F5-AF78-47FE-A574-9136A7957694_zpsgzka1ogr.jpg&hash=f2daeb305a9c027e3d066480e7202ab2356dfdc4)
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 27, 2015, 08:59:10 AM
Seen on Twitter about 15 minutes ago. Inner Loop in Springfield. Apparently there were nails or screws or something spilled in the "free" lanes that caused a mega-problem
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FA74850F5-AF78-47FE-A574-9136A7957694_zpsgzka1ogr.jpg&hash=f2daeb305a9c027e3d066480e7202ab2356dfdc4)
That is impressively high! I just wonder if the bottleneck north of Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) was as bad as it normally is?
The toll last night to travel the full length of the HOT lanes on the I-95 was over $17. is that a record? Is there actually a maximum amount that can be achieved or is it open-ended?
There is no maximum on either I-95 or I-495.
As is noted elsewhere in this thread, last Friday (the day before Memorial Day weekend), the toll for just the southern segment on I-95 (from near Wegmans down to Aquia) was $18.10. That's for about nine or ten miles. The tolls for the northern two segments at the same time were around $3.05 for the first part (Turkeycock to Springfield) and around $5.10 for the second part (Springfield to "95-DALE"). So the total was around $26.25 to drive the full length at that particular time.
The $17 toll shown above on I-495 is the highest I know of so far on that road. I didn't see it personally. I was on the subway when that happened. But I had heard on the radio that there were mega-problems, so a high toll was not a surprise.
How are these tolls determined?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 22, 2015, 10:47:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 22, 2015, 10:21:17 AM
I wonder, would the problem at the southern end be alleviated–I deliberately chose not to say "solved"–if there were a single-lane extension that merged into the mainline on the left beyond Exit 143? That way traffic bound for that exit (which has a thriving slug lot) could use the existing flyover, but thru traffic could bypass it and avoid the weave area caused by the flyover's proximity to the interchange.
I know left-side merges are bad and the old one at Dumfries was a problem. In this case, there would at least be two options for how to rejoin the main line.
Just a thought I had. I haven't been through there southbound in several months and I intend to avoid southbound travel beyond Woodbridge this weekend!
Take a page from the NJ Turnpike manual as to how to merge 6 lanes down to 3 lanes.
The biggest issue will be, unlike the Turnpike's dual-dual section, the HOT lanes aren't in use at all times, so there will be plenty of time where the general use lanes will be impacted from the HOT lanes merging in.
I'm not sure why I overlooked this post before. I think part of the reason for not doing the Turnpike-style merge is a desire to avoid a left-side merge (which caused bottlenecks at the lanes' prior southern terminus) and to provide an easy mechanism for HO/T users who want to use Exit 143 to reach the exit ramps without having to cut across all the general-purpose lanes after using a left-side merge. The latter is probably the more important consideration of the two, but unfortunately, the result is that HO/T users who wish to remain on I-95 have to shove left just as general-purpose traffic seeking to exit has to shove right.
One thing VDOT is unlikely ever to do, based on my observations from living in Virginia since 1974, is to set up a "Center Lanes Merge" situation. It's not the sort of thing I've ever seen anywhere in Virginia except perhaps on a temporary basis during construction. It's always either the far right lane or the far left lane that ends.
The most sensible short-term solution would appear to be to construct a single-lane connection that joins I-95 from the left a bit south of the Exit 143 ramps. Perhaps this could be done by widening the left shoulder and erecting a hard barrier to prevent HO/T traffic using this connection from trying to cut to the right to access Exit 143. Of course, to the extent this eliminates a left shoulder for the general-purpose lanes it introduces other problems....
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 30, 2015, 11:52:05 AM
How are theses tolls determined?
Proprietary, secret algorithm developed by the owner of the concession, Transurban.
I thought that it would be a function of congestion on the GP lanes and percentage of HOVs on the HOT lanes.
Has the Commonwealth approved this algorithm?
Is there also some sort of "guarantee" of an average speed of 45 mph on the HOT lanes?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 30, 2015, 10:54:58 PM
I thought that it would be a function of congestion on the GP lanes and percentage of HOVs on the HOT lanes.
That is now some of them work (notably the HOV/Toll lanes on I-15 (Escondido Freeway) in San Diego County, California).
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 30, 2015, 10:54:58 PM
Has the Commonwealth approved this algorithm?
I do not believe they have any authority over that. The big things that Transurban is mandated contractually to do are:
- Maintain free-flow speeds in the lanes covered under the concession agreement;
- Allow free passage to transit buses; and
- Allow free passage to HOV-3 cars, light trucks and vans (including van-pool vans).
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 30, 2015, 10:54:58 PM
Is there also some sort of "guarantee" of an average speed of 45 mph on the HOT lanes?
Not sure if it is 45, but it has to be free-flow.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2015, 11:06:48 PM
I do not believe they have any authority over that. The big things that Transurban is mandated contractually to do are:
- Maintain free-flow speeds in the lanes covered under the concession agreement;
- Allow free passage to transit buses; and
- Allow free passage to HOV-3 cars, light trucks and vans (including van-pool vans).
Isn't there also some payment that the state has to make to Transurban if there are too many HOVs using the HOT lanes?
Quote from: mrsman on June 05, 2015, 02:23:54 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2015, 11:06:48 PM
I do not believe they have any authority over that. The big things that Transurban is mandated contractually to do are:
- Maintain free-flow speeds in the lanes covered under the concession agreement;
- Allow free passage to transit buses; and
- Allow free passage to HOV-3 cars, light trucks and vans (including van-pool vans).
Isn't there also some payment that the state has to make to Transurban if there are too many HOVs using the HOT lanes?
I believe there is for I-495, but not sure about I-95.
Washington Post: Transurban extending express lanes toll forgiveness plan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/06/07/transurban-extending-express-lanes-toll-forgiveness-plan/)
QuoteTransurban, the company that operates the 95 Express Lanes and the 495 Express Lanes in Northern Virginia, plans to make its "First Time Forgiveness" program retroactive for drivers who mistakenly failed to pay a toll.
QuoteThe current program, launched in October, had helped more than 2,700 express lanes users by the end of April, Transurban spokesman Michael McGurk said. "Making First Time Forgiveness retroactive was the logical next step," Nic Barr, Transurban's vice president of operations, said in a statement.
QuoteSeveral hundred more customers have the potential to benefit from that, McGurk said.
Coming down on Saturday, I saw a truck that clearly didn't belong on the lanes. Whoever driving it seemed to be clueless too. At one point they went to take one of the exits back to the mainline and at the last minute swerved back into the express lanes! Pricing was at the "base" toll, those lanes were a ghost town on a Saturday morning.
It's not unusual to see trucks using them. On I-95 trucks used to be allowed prior to the HO/T changeover (except south of Potomac Mills Mall due to the weigh station out on the mainline), so some drivers may just mess up. On the Beltway, it's less understandable. I've seen a number of trucks in the Beltway lanes stopped by police.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 08, 2015, 07:27:45 AM
It's not unusual to see trucks using them. On I-95 trucks used to be allowed prior to the HO/T changeover (except south of Potomac Mills Mall due to the weigh station out on the mainline), so some drivers may just mess up. On the Beltway, it's less understandable. I've seen a number of trucks in the Beltway lanes stopped by police.
If the VSP observe a truck with an apparent gross vehicle weight over 10,000 pounds, then will stop it and give the driver a ticket.
I thought such trucks were
no now banned from the HOV/Toll section of I-95 as well?
Trucks over 2 axles are banned on all the NoVa HO/T lanes.
As 1995hoo noted, semis could use I-95 HOV lanes from Dale City northward during non-HOV hours up until they were converted to HO/T 24-7 on Dec 29, 2014.
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 08, 2015, 09:02:34 AM
Trucks over 2 axles are banned on all the NoVa HO/T lanes.
As 1995hoo noted, semis could use I-95 HOV lanes from Dale City northward during non-HOV hours up until they were converted to HO/T 24-7 on Dec 29, 2014.
They could use them during HOV hours as well, if they had at least three passengers in the vehicle.
There used to be a refuse truck business based in Triangle (I think it is gone now) that had a lot of customers in D.C. and nearby areas of Northern Virginia, and their big trucks (three axles) used to run the HOV lanes northbound in the mornings and southbound in the afternoons.
Usually two persons in the cab, and one or two persons sitting in the loading hopper in the back of the truck.
I saw a VSP trooper flag one of them over in the afternoon near Dale City because there were only two heads visible up front, but they were waved on when he determined that there were two more people in the back of the truck.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 08, 2015, 07:59:29 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 08, 2015, 07:27:45 AM
It's not unusual to see trucks using them. On I-95 trucks used to be allowed prior to the HO/T changeover (except south of Potomac Mills Mall due to the weigh station out on the mainline), so some drivers may just mess up. On the Beltway, it's less understandable. I've seen a number of trucks in the Beltway lanes stopped by police.
If the VSP observe a truck with an apparent gross vehicle weight over 10,000 pounds, then will stop it and give the driver a ticket.
I thought such trucks were no now banned from the HOV/Toll section of I-95 as well?
Correct, they are now banned on I-95. I was saying (perhaps not clearly enough) that they
used to be allowed in the then-HOV lanes except for the part near the weigh station. During HOV hours they had to meet the HOV requirement of 3 or more people.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 08, 2015, 07:15:52 AM
Major Fail!
Gates on the express lanes were frozen and had to be opened manually. Even with opening time at 2 a.m. they were not able to open them fully until nearly 6.
Part of the reason for how long it took to do it manually is that all the ramps now have 10-16 gates each...
Mainline 95 from Dumfries to Woodbridge does not do well at all when the lanes are closed for whatever reason...a little better north of VA 123.
Mapmikey
This happened again this morning. Supposedly the storms last night caused problems requiring manual opening of the gates. They were still closed as late as 6.
Mainline 95 was worse this time than the last time this happened over the winter.
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 09, 2015, 09:08:19 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 08, 2015, 07:15:52 AM
Major Fail!
Gates on the express lanes were frozen and had to be opened manually. Even with opening time at 2 a.m. they were not able to open them fully until nearly 6.
Part of the reason for how long it took to do it manually is that all the ramps now have 10-16 gates each...
Mainline 95 from Dumfries to Woodbridge does not do well at all when the lanes are closed for whatever reason...a little better north of VA 123.
Mapmikey
This happened again this morning. Supposedly the storms last night caused problems requiring manual opening of the gates. They were still closed as late as 6.
Mainline 95 was worse this time than the last time this happened over the winter.
Transurban spent
a lot of money to install generators to power their toll collection equipment in the event of power failure along their lanes on i-495 and I-95/I-395. Similarly, MdTA has generators at each of its toll collection points along Md. 200, and at the toll points along the I-95 ETLs north of Baltimore.
Wonder why they (Transurban) did not bother to pay for generators to power the gates in case of an outage, since malfunctioning gates will cost them plenty in terms of customers that cannot use their lanes.
Wonder if their contract with VDOT has a liquidated damages clause if they do not have the lanes open on-time?
QuoteWonder if their contract with VDOT has a liquidated damages clause if they do not have the lanes open on-time?
Given what was made public of the 495 contract, I'd suspect that the state did not push this. A shame, too. Transurban rolled over VDOT way too easily on these HO/T lane contracts.
If people down there make a lot of noise, which they should be doing, maybe VDOT and Transurban should agree to call in people when thunderstorms may occur and have them available at or near interchanges to manually control the gates if power goes out.
Expensive? Yep. But I'm sure there's enough maintenance people to handle it. When Transurban has enough of that, they'll install the generators necessary.
Quote from: froggie on June 10, 2015, 08:56:15 AM
Given what was made public of the 495 contract, I'd suspect that the state did not push this. A shame, too. Transurban rolled over VDOT way too easily on these HO/T lane contracts.
I unfortunately agree.
But I think the blame lies more with the Commonwealth's lawyers (Assistant Attorney Generals) assigned to VDOT (who work for the state Attorney General, not Virginia's Secretary of Transportation) who were
not experienced in such matters.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 10, 2015, 09:28:27 AM
If people down there make a lot of noise, which they should be doing, maybe VDOT and Transurban should agree to call in people when thunderstorms may occur and have them available at or near interchanges to manually control the gates if power goes out.
Expensive? Yep. But I'm sure there's enough maintenance people to handle it. When Transurban has enough of that, they'll install the generators necessary.
One can only hope. I am not confident that Transurban will want to make the substantial investment (now) to have backup power for the gates.
Transurban has begun to install red flags with white Xs onto the barrier gates along the 95 Express Lanes. You know. In case you don't notice 16 closed gates with red lights on them.
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 15, 2015, 03:01:00 PM
Transurban has begun to install red flags with white Xs onto the barrier gates along the 95 Express Lanes. You know. In case you don't notice 16 closed gates with red lights on them.
I suppose those flags cost a little bit less than motors and the cables needed to reach the gate arms?
I'm fixin' to ask a stupid question.
How do they know that you have 3 people in your car or not to make the charge/no charge decision? (seeing that everything is automated).
I went through there on Memorial Day but I had to stay on the mainline since I didn't have the EZ-pass equipment. I didn't need to be in the HO/T lanes since traffic was light anyway so I'm not sure I would have used them even if I had. I did have 3 in the car, and I was wondering how the system would be able to tell so that I wouldn't have been charged to use them if I had.
You have to have a special EZ-pass device called EZ-Pass Flex. It has a switch that you can put in carpool mode and it won't get charged.
If you have one of these and forget to put it back into regular mode and are driving with <3 passengers, you are subject to ticketing by the State Police.
I only have the regular EZ-pass transponder and I would have to pay no matter how many people are in my car if I used the lanes with 3+ people.
Mike
The Northern Virginia HO/T lanes all require you to have an EZPass, regardless of whether you have 3 people in the car or not. For commuters, VDOT has what they call an EZPass Flex, which allows you to switch back and forth between "regular" and "HOV". State Police apparently have technology that can read whether the Flex is in regular mode or HOV mode, and can/will pull over vehicles in HOV mode but who don't have 3 or more people in them.
If you don't have the EZPass Flex (which is probably everybody outside the DC area), you can still use the lanes if you have an EZPass or compatible (I believe NC's transponder is compatible now), but you will still be charged even if you have 3 people.
Thanks Mapmikey, that makes sense.
I wonder why they don't give out the flex equipment as the default? Well then again of course I know why-it's cheaper and more people get charged that way.
Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2015, 01:57:33 PM
The Northern Virginia HO/T lanes all require you to have an EZPass, regardless of whether you have 3 people in the car or not. For commuters, VDOT has what they call an EZPass Flex, which allows you to switch back and forth between "regular" and "HOV". State Police apparently have technology that can read whether the Flex is in regular mode or HOV mode, and can/will pull over vehicles in HOV mode but who don't have 3 or more people in them.
If you don't have the EZPass Flex (which is probably everybody outside the DC area), you can still use the lanes if you have an EZPass or compatible (I believe NC's transponder is compatible now), but you will still be charged even if you have 3 people.
Thanks Froggie.
I don't own an NC EZ-Pass, I don't live near enough to a toll facility to warrant it. Even when I am up in the Raleigh area shopping and whatnot I avoid I-540 like the plague anyway.
QuoteI wonder why they don't give out the flex equipment as the default? Well then again of course I know why-it's cheaper and more people get charged that way.
Limited demand, all things considered. Because even with the Flex, you need to have 3 people in your car in order to use the Flex.
Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2015, 02:10:59 PM
QuoteI wonder why they don't give out the flex equipment as the default? Well then again of course I know why-it's cheaper and more people get charged that way.
Limited demand, all things considered. Because even with the Flex, you need to have 3 people in your car in order to use the Flex.
Are the tickets for being pulled over like this more than speeding tickets? I'm only asking because running a toll doesn't have as much as fine as speeding seems to, unless you're a repeat offender.
Arguably worse than speeding tickets. Virginia law is less kind to HOV violations than it is to speeding violations (unless you're going 80+ or 20 over...that's a different animal). 1st offense in Northern Virginia is $125. Subsequent offenses incur higher fines plus points off your license.
Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2015, 02:10:59 PM
QuoteI wonder why they don't give out the flex equipment as the default? Well then again of course I know why-it's cheaper and more people get charged that way.
Limited demand, all things considered. Because even with the Flex, you need to have 3 people in your car in order to use the Flex.
They further discourage frivolous obtaining of a Flex by imposing a one-time $10 fee if you go six months without using it in HOV mode (if you obtained it after October 1 of last year, I believe). It's a one-time fee, period–it's not $10 every time you go six months without an HOV-mode trip. But still, why incur a fee you don't have to? We have two standard E-ZPasses and didn't get a Flex because we almost never have three people in the car. Our neighbors two doors down have three kids, so they have a Flex in their minivan (but not in their other vehicle, a Passat).
Regarding the HOV fines, I believe (I don't have experience with it!) that the fourth violation is a cool $1000. I can't see time savings being worth that much money.
Its too bad no other E-ZPass facility has looked into the Flex transponder system. The PANYNJ car pool discounts would be a good candidate for it. Right now you have to register for the program, and someone in a staffed lane has to verify the number of vehicle occupants and manually apply the discount rate.
Anyway, I did notice something about pricing. The "base" price for the HOT lanes seems to be higher when the lanes are operating northbound vs. southbound. Well.... based on my observations traveling through the area early in the morning when the mainline is free flowing and the HOT lanes totally empty.
Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2015, 03:39:53 PM
Arguably worse than speeding tickets. Virginia law is less kind to HOV violations than it is to speeding violations (unless you're going 80+ or 20 over...that's a different animal). 1st offense in Northern Virginia is $125. Subsequent offenses incur higher fines plus points off your license.
Maryland is worse in terms of HOV violators.
Any HOV violator who is convicted in Maryland will likely have violation of Transportation Article § 21-201 (http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gtr§ion=21-201&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5), Obedience to and required traffic control devices, on their driving record, which is a "moving" violation that allows auto insurance companies to increase rates.
That didn't seem to deter folks from using the 24-hour HOV2 lane on US-50 for passing last Sunday. :rolleyes:
Seems there will be "purple striping" added to certain HO/T lane entrances. It sounds like the purple will be sort of like a shadow (for lack of a better term) alongside existing white skip lines. One wonders to what extent the average driver associates purple with managed lanes so far–perhaps it's more reasonable to think these markings might help people to learn to make that association (though on the Inner Loop of the Beltway, in particular, I'm sure there'll always be people who think the two left lanes near the Robinson Terminal are there for them to use to try to cut the line in the other lanes).
https://www.expresslanes.com/feature/1779
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 16, 2015, 11:35:34 PM
That didn't seem to deter folks from using the 24-hour HOV2 lane on US-50 for passing last Sunday. :rolleyes:
It's not well-enforced (most of the time). But when the State Police do enforce it, they tend to catch a lot of violators, and those tickets almost certainly lead to higher insurance rates for many that get caught.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 18, 2015, 04:24:47 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 16, 2015, 11:35:34 PM
That didn't seem to deter folks from using the 24-hour HOV2 lane on US-50 for passing last Sunday. :rolleyes:
It's not well-enforced (most of the time). But when the State Police do enforce it, they tend to catch a lot of violators, and those tickets almost certainly lead to higher insurance rates for many that get caught.
Similarly, the VSP are often out in force to catch violators on the HOV lanes along I-64 on the Peninsula on summer Fridays. (Which doesn't make a lot of sense, since most beach traffic would seem qualify for those lanes, but they seem to catch a lot of people)
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 18, 2015, 08:24:13 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 18, 2015, 04:24:47 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 16, 2015, 11:35:34 PM
That didn't seem to deter folks from using the 24-hour HOV2 lane on US-50 for passing last Sunday. :rolleyes:
It's not well-enforced (most of the time). But when the State Police do enforce it, they tend to catch a lot of violators, and those tickets almost certainly lead to higher insurance rates for many that get caught.
Similarly, the VSP are often out in force to catch violators on the HOV lanes along I-64 on the Peninsula on summer Fridays. (Which doesn't make a lot of sense, since most beach traffic would seem qualify for those lanes, but they seem to catch a lot of people)
Depending on where the beach traffic originates, the drivers may not be familiar with the HOV lanes. I knew people who passed through the DC area all the time but never drove in the I-95 HOV because they weren't sure where the lanes went and whether they'd be able to exit in the right place. (I suppose the signs ARE designed for local drivers only because they presume the driver knows where the lanes go, given their lack of destination info.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 16, 2015, 04:25:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2015, 02:10:59 PM
QuoteI wonder why they don't give out the flex equipment as the default? Well then again of course I know why-it's cheaper and more people get charged that way.
Limited demand, all things considered. Because even with the Flex, you need to have 3 people in your car in order to use the Flex.
They further discourage frivolous obtaining of a Flex by imposing a one-time $10 fee if you go six months without using it in HOV mode (if you obtained it after October 1 of last year, I believe). It's a one-time fee, period–it's not $10 every time you go six months without an HOV-mode trip. But still, why incur a fee you don't have to? We have two standard E-ZPasses and didn't get a Flex because we almost never have three people in the car. Our neighbors two doors down have three kids, so they have a Flex in their minivan (but not in their other vehicle, a Passat).
Regarding the HOV fines, I believe (I don't have experience with it!) that the fourth violation is a cool $1000. I can't see time savings being worth that much money.
If I'm reading you correctly, if you get an EZ-Pass Flex, you will be charged a $10 fee if you don't use the HOV mode within 6 months. Does that also mean that if you do use it once during your first 6 months, you will be charged the $10 fee if you don't use it again within 6 months of your most recent use?
You're correct on the first part. I don't know as to the second. I didn't pay that close of attention to it because we didn't get a Flex transponder for any of the cars. That may change if/when I-66 gets HO/T lanes. When we visit our favorite winery, a friend who lives in Maryland often comes and we pick her up at the Vienna Metro, so in that case we could use the Flex. But unless/until those lanes open, we get no benefit.
Edited to add: But I do recall reading that once you incur the $10 fee, you don't get hit with again. So if I had a Flex and used it in HOV mode this week, went six months without doing so and paid the $10, then used it once in HOV mode, then didn't use HOV mode again for six more months, I wouldn't be dinged for another $10.
From the Virginia EZPass website (https://www.ezpassva.com/EZPages/New-Flex.aspx):
Please Note: Beginning July 1st 2015, users who have not used their Flex transponder for HOV transactions on Express Lanes for any prior six month period will be required to exchange their Flex transponder for a standard transponder (at no cost) or be subject to a one-time transponder functionality upgrade fee of $10. This only applies to transponders issued after October 1st 2014.
(emphasis mine)
Fredericksburg.com [Free Lance Star]: Studies show mixed results from I-95 express lanes -
TOLL-ROAD USERS ENJOY FASTER COMMUTES, BUT REGULAR LANES BOGGING DOWN IN STAFFORD (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/studies-show-mixed-results-from-i--express-lanes/article_2dc20bfe-3c26-5338-ae20-1c0cb44b6911.html)
QuoteNearly six months after opening, the Interstate 95 express lanes appear to be having the intended results of creating faster trips along the 29-mile corridor, according to recently released studies.
QuoteBut there also has been some collateral damage, especially for drivers in the Fredericksburg area. A separate study shows a slowdown on regular lanes through Stafford County during morning and afternoon rush hours.
QuoteThe nearly $1 billion express lanes opened in December after nearly two years of construction. The electronically tolled lanes run along the middle of the interstate, replacing the HOV lanes.
QuoteThe project extended the lanes from Dumfries to the Garrisonville area and created more entry and exit points.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2015, 09:11:53 PM
Depending on where the beach traffic originates, the drivers may not be familiar with the HOV lanes. I knew people who passed through the DC area all the time but never drove in the I-95 HOV because they weren't sure where the lanes went and whether they'd be able to exit in the right place. (I suppose the signs ARE designed for local drivers only because they presume the driver knows where the lanes go, given their lack of destination info.)
I very much agree with the above.
I have seen school buses headed south from touristy activity in Washington on I-395 and I-95 in the conventional lanes from distant school districts in Virginia and the Carolinas (I think the most-distant one I have ever seen in that corridor was from Horry County, S.C., quite a long haul in a school bus). I presume the drivers did not know that their buses were allowed to use the HOV lanes (and can use the Transurban 95 Express lanes for free, though I think they must have an E-ZPass transponder anyway).
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2015, 09:48:14 AM
From the Virginia EZPass website (https://www.ezpassva.com/EZPages/New-Flex.aspx):
Please Note: Beginning July 1st 2015, users who have not used their Flex transponder for HOV transactions on Express Lanes for any prior six month period will be required to exchange their Flex transponder for a standard transponder (at no cost) or be subject to a one-time transponder functionality upgrade fee of $10. This only applies to transponders issued after October 1st 2014.
(emphasis mine)
I see. So it seems that the general way of thinking behind VA Ez-pass is that they want to encourage people to get the regular EZ-pass, and if you get it from Va, you won't have to pay any account maintenance fees (unlike some other states). But they are trying to discourage the Ez-pass flex, unless you use HOV at least every 6 months.
I live in the MD suburbs of DC. Almost every long-distance trip that I make is with family (wife + 3 kids). Most of our long-distance trips are to the New York area, so I have an EZ-Pass from the MTA Bridges and Tunnels which is considered local to NY so that I get discounts on some of the tolls in that area, plus there is no monthly fee, so I only pay for the tolls I incur.
I do have some family and friends in Northern Virginia but usually make those trips on the weekends and don't face too much traffic. I've never used the express lanes while they were in toll operation. (I did do a free tour out of roadgeek curiosity during the free trial period when the I-495 lanes first opened.)
We are envisioning a trip to the South some time within the next few months and I guess it may make sense to get an EZ-pass flex for the trip, to sail through I-495 and I-95 on the express lanes toll-free, and then canceling the EZ-pass after the trip so that I don't incur the $10 fee. Does this make sense?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 22, 2015, 05:50:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2015, 09:11:53 PM
Depending on where the beach traffic originates, the drivers may not be familiar with the HOV lanes. I knew people who passed through the DC area all the time but never drove in the I-95 HOV because they weren't sure where the lanes went and whether they'd be able to exit in the right place. (I suppose the signs ARE designed for local drivers only because they presume the driver knows where the lanes go, given their lack of destination info.)
I very much agree with the above.
I have seen school buses headed south from touristy activity in Washington on I-395 and I-95 in the conventional lanes from distant school districts in Virginia and the Carolinas (I think the most-distant one I have ever seen in that corridor was from Horry County, S.C., quite a long haul in a school bus). I presume the drivers did not know that their buses were allowed to use the HOV lanes (and can use the Transurban 95 Express lanes for free, though I think they must have an E-ZPass transponder anyway).
CPZ, I believe you have the point. The buses probably do not have an EZ-pass flex, so if they used the express lanes, they would need an EZ-Pass and pay toll.
I know that they originally required motorcycles to have an EZ-pass, but have since relented. I believe that buses which are very distinguishable from cars should also be exempt from the EZ-pass requirement.
Ideally, all HOV users should be able to use the express lanes without an EZ-Pass. However, Transurban said that it would be too hard to do enforcement without utilizing EZ-passes.
It's odd that along I-15 in San Diego, carpools can ride the lanes without a Fastrak transponder. Yet in Los Angeles along I-10 and I-110, carpools needs to use a switchable Fastrak transponder and Virginia requires carpools to use the EZ-Pass flex along its express lanes.
See:
http://fastrak.511sd.com/san-diego-toll-roads/i-15-express-lanes
https://www.metroexpresslanes.net/en/about/howit.shtml
Quote from: mrsman on June 26, 2015, 01:55:35 PM
We are envisioning a trip to the South some time within the next few months and I guess it may make sense to get an EZ-pass flex for the trip, to sail through I-495 and I-95 on the express lanes toll-free, and then canceling the EZ-pass after the trip so that I don't incur the $10 fee. Does this make sense?
Seems like a bit of work. You'll have to cough up some money too for a deposit. Yeah, it's not a lot of money and you'll get it back. And it depends on the timing of the trip. Are you going to try to do the trip outside of rush hour? What if you're heading south in the morning? The Express Lanes won't be open anyway for you.
If you are only thinking of getting the EZ Pass Flex for a single trip (well, round trip), personally it's not worth it. You'll probably be more willing to time your trip so you don't have to deal with traffic than finding a way to avoid traffic for a small stretch of highway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2015, 02:13:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 26, 2015, 01:55:35 PM
We are envisioning a trip to the South some time within the next few months and I guess it may make sense to get an EZ-pass flex for the trip, to sail through I-495 and I-95 on the express lanes toll-free, and then canceling the EZ-pass after the trip so that I don't incur the $10 fee. Does this make sense?
Seems like a bit of work. You'll have to cough up some money too for a deposit. Yeah, it's not a lot of money and you'll get it back. And it depends on the timing of the trip. Are you going to try to do the trip outside of rush hour? What if you're heading south in the morning? The Express Lanes won't be open anyway for you.
If you are only thinking of getting the EZ Pass Flex for a single trip (well, round trip), personally it's not worth it. You'll probably be more willing to time your trip so you don't have to deal with traffic than finding a way to avoid traffic for a small stretch of highway.
That may be true, but I keep hearing about how bad I-95 is south of the Beltway. Although, for most of my family trips we are pretty lucky in that we tend to go in the reverse direction of traffic.
For the trips to NYC, generally we leave in the morning and so it's reverse direction leaving the DC area. Baltimore's traffic isn't too bad. And we are generally pretty good until we cross from NJ to NY (tending to see a lot of New Yorkers clogging up the roads going the other way heading for the Jersey Shore and other points south). Of course, then we really hit traffic trying to make our way through Staten Island and Brooklyn to Queens.
To be fair, I haven't lived in northern Virginia (Huntington) since 2012, but the general rule was that I-95 South was okay if you left in the morning.
In general froggie's advice remains accurate, though of course an accident or other incident can cause problems at anytime. Yesterday a tree fell into the southbound lanes, so obviously that caused problems. The best rule of thumb is to listen to WTOP (103.5-FM), which airs traffic "on the 8s," i.e., x:08, x:18, x:28, etc.
Of course, except on Saturday, if you head south on I-95 in the morning, that road's HO/T lanes won't help you because they'll be pointed north.
I think for a single trip, or a single roundtrip, getting the E-ZPass Flex and then cancelling it would be more trouble than it's worth. One thought, however: Your profile says you live in Silver Spring. Do you ever go to Tysons Corner or out to the west via I-66? If you do make such trips more than once in a great while, the E-ZPass Flex might be worth it for you if you have three or more people in the car when you make that drive. Coming from Silver Spring via the Beltway, Tysons Corner Center ("Tysons I," the original mall where Nordstrom and Bloomingdale's are located) is substantially easier to reach via the Beltway's HO/T lanes than it is via the mainline. You take the Westpark Drive exit and then hang a left on the bridge and the mall parking is right there, whereas via Route 123 or Route 7 there are a couple of hassles. Of course, on the other hand the toll to Tysons from Maryland is usually minimal, but if that lets you get the E-ZPass Flex for free for use on longer trips, maybe it could be worthwhile for you.
The I-95 lanes are usually open southbound during the day on Saturdays and northbound on Sundays.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 27, 2015, 01:53:11 AM
The I-95 lanes are usually open southbound during the day on Saturdays and northbound on Sundays.
The changeover is on Saturday afternoon, typically between 2 to 4 PM.
BTW, while it's much further to the south than the HO/T lanes, this morning underscored my point about traffic incidents: I-95 was closed southbound near Ashland due to a jackknifed truck. All the more reason to make sure you're familiar with alternates (once you're south of Fredericksburg, US-1 to the west is what most people use to bail out, so I'd probably suggest using US-301 to the east instead if the traffic gets really bad).
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2015, 11:14:00 AM
All the more reason to make sure you're familiar with alternates (once you're south of Fredericksburg, US-1 to the west is what most people use to bail out, so I'd probably suggest using US-301 to the east instead if the traffic gets really bad).
Even when I-95 is horrendously congested between I-295 north of Richmond in Henrico County and I-495/I-395 in Springfield, there is seldom much traffic on the lonely 4-lane and 2-lane sections of U.S. 301 between the Gov. Nice Bridge and I-295 northeast of Richmond.
I know a few people that live in Virginia that use this route (combined with Md. 5) on summer weekends as a bail route to avoid I-95.
yes...VA 2 and US 301 are never crowded, even when 95 is a complete disaster.
For those heading to Hampton Roads, VA 30 is always empty...
Mike
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2015, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2015, 11:14:00 AM
All the more reason to make sure you're familiar with alternates (once you're south of Fredericksburg, US-1 to the west is what most people use to bail out, so I'd probably suggest using US-301 to the east instead if the traffic gets really bad).
Even when I-95 is horrendously congested between I-295 north of Richmond in Henrico County and I-495/I-395 in Springfield, there is seldom much traffic on the lonely 4-lane and 2-lane sections of U.S. 301 between the Gov. Nice Bridge and I-295 northeast of Richmond.
I know a few people that live in Virginia that use this route (combined with Md. 5) on summer weekends as a bail route to avoid I-95.
Is MD 3 between US 50 and I-97/MD 32 that bad on summer weekends? I bring it up because using the MD 5 route to me does not avoid the DC area entirely, which was what I understood about people using US 301 instead of I-95 in the first place. I'm sure the Beltway itself is not too bad either on the weekends (minus major events at FedEx Field).
I will note that the last time I used US 301 heading south, the whole MD 5 duplex was backed up on Friday night despite already being after 8.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2015, 07:36:51 PM
yes...VA 2 and US 301 are never crowded, even when 95 is a complete disaster.
For those heading to Hampton Roads, VA 30 is always empty...
Mike
I would still prefer using US 17 until I-64 is 6 lanes farther west. Using VA 30, US 17, and/or VA 3 to Hampton Roads seems similar to using VA 208 as an alternate to head to Charlottesville IMO. Definitely usable but obviously something the normal person following a GPS would not even think about.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 27, 2015, 07:56:40 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2015, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2015, 11:14:00 AM
All the more reason to make sure you're familiar with alternates (once you're south of Fredericksburg, US-1 to the west is what most people use to bail out, so I'd probably suggest using US-301 to the east instead if the traffic gets really bad).
Even when I-95 is horrendously congested between I-295 north of Richmond in Henrico County and I-495/I-395 in Springfield, there is seldom much traffic on the lonely 4-lane and 2-lane sections of U.S. 301 between the Gov. Nice Bridge and I-295 northeast of Richmond.
I know a few people that live in Virginia that use this route (combined with Md. 5) on summer weekends as a bail route to avoid I-95.
Is MD 3 between US 50 and I-97/MD 32 that bad on summer weekends? I bring it up because using the MD 5 route to me does not avoid the DC area entirely, which was what I understood about people using US 301 instead of I-95 in the first place. I'm sure the Beltway itself is not too bad either on the weekends (minus major events at FedEx Field).
I will note that the last time I used US 301 heading south, the whole MD 5 duplex was backed up on Friday night despite already being after 8.
U.S. 301 north of Md. 5, past Upper Marlboro, to U.S. 50 at Bowie is not usually terrible, unless there is a crash. You can indeed continue north on Md. 3 past Bowie, where U.S. 301 turns east to join U.S. 50 across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. Md. 3 north of Bowie is quite similar to U.S. 301 south of Bowie, not usually bad
except during weekday peak commute times or if there is a crash. But if your goal is to avoid D.C.-area congestion and your destination is northern Delaware, or anywhere beyond (Philadelphia, New Jersey, New York and so on), then staying with U.S. 301 across the Bay Bridge and the Upper Eastern Shore is probably the better choice, and cheaper in terms of tolls, too.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 27, 2015, 07:56:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2015, 07:36:51 PM
yes...VA 2 and US 301 are never crowded, even when 95 is a complete disaster.
For those heading to Hampton Roads, VA 30 is always empty...
Mike
I would still prefer using US 17 until I-64 is 6 lanes farther west. Using VA 30, US 17, and/or VA 3 to Hampton Roads seems similar to using VA 208 as an alternate to head to Charlottesville IMO. Definitely usable but obviously something the normal person following a GPS would not even think about.
U.S. 17 would be (and is) my preferred route to avoid heavy traffic volumes on I-64 between Richmond and Newport News in that case.
I have driven from Charlottesville to my home in Edgewater, Maryland by way of Va. 20, Va. 3, U.S. 301 and Md. 214. Not a bad way to avoid the misery of I-95 north of Fredericksburg.
I took US-50/301 to the Eastern Shore coming back from NC this time around (from the Beltway). Zero traffic after US-50 split off..... then I hit Delaware. US-301 south of US-50 is a crapshot from what I've heard. The VA side is usually empty, but the MD side can be annoyingly slow to the point that I-95 would have been faster if it is incident free.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2015, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2015, 11:14:00 AM
All the more reason to make sure you're familiar with alternates (once you're south of Fredericksburg, US-1 to the west is what most people use to bail out, so I'd probably suggest using US-301 to the east instead if the traffic gets really bad).
Even when I-95 is horrendously congested between I-295 north of Richmond in Henrico County and I-495/I-395 in Springfield, there is seldom much traffic on the lonely 4-lane and 2-lane sections of U.S. 301 between the Gov. Nice Bridge and I-295 northeast of Richmond.
I know a few people that live in Virginia that use this route (combined with Md. 5) on summer weekends as a bail route to avoid I-95.
Yup. We used a version of that route last spring when I absolutely HAD to be at the speedway in Richmond by a particular time on a Friday morning for one of those stock car "driving experience" events where you drive a stock car around the speedway. Instead of Route 5 in Maryland, I used 210 to Accokeek and then 228 across. It eliminates a lot of the traffic lights in the Waldorf area, although 210 can sometimes be a bit of a white-knuckle drive if the speed demons are out. I had not been on Route 301 between Bowling Green and the turn for Kings Dominion since the summer of 1985 (that year we made a Boy Scout trip to Kings Dominion one day, camped there, then went up to Fort A.P. Hill to visit the National Jamboree the next day). I don't think Route 301 has changed very much in all that time!
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2015, 08:52:22 PM
....
I have driven from Charlottesville to my home in Edgewater, Maryland by way of Va. 20, Va. 3, U.S. 301 and Md. 214. Not a bad way to avoid the misery of I-95 north of Fredericksburg.
I use a slight variation of that. Avoiding I-95 is harder for me because of where I live (Exit 173 off I-95 in Virginia). On our most recent trip home from Charlottesville earlier this month, I wound up using Route 1 north to Stafford, then picking up I-95 and jumping into the HO/T lanes.
For the southern part, heading south I use Route 3 west to Route 20, but when I reach the traffic light in Orange, I turn left onto US-15, take that nine miles south to Gordonsville, and then take the second exit from the roundabout onto VA-231. It becomes VA-22 near Cismont, but you just keep straight ahead until it dumps you into US-250 near Shadwell. You then have the choice of taking 250 over Pantops to enter Charlottesville from the east or taking I-64 across to the University area as a bypass. I learned this route from one of my college roommates whose parents lived (still do, actually) right near Mount Vernon such that the US-29/I-66 route is way out of the easy. One thing I like about this route is that Routes 22 and 231 are scenic, especially the little Episcopalian church just north of Cismont. Beautiful little church. Also, Route 15 is four lanes and so provides an opportunity to get around slower vehicles, whereas Route 20 between Charlottesville and Orange doesn't allow for much passing.
I learned of another new route a year or two ago that uses the new Lake Anna Parkway, a four-lane upgrade of existing Route 208 between the lake area and Fredericksburg. You get onto Route 208 from US-1 just north of the Massaponax interchange on I-95 (Exit 126) and you simply follow it south across Lake Anna to US-522. Make a left and follow that to Mineral, then go right on US-33/VA-22. (I believe there is a back road that cuts the corner and avoids Mineral, but I do not remember the number and I don't feel like pulling up a map.) You can then connect to I-64 from Louisa or use VA-22 to Shadwell. I used this route in 2012 or 2013. Crossing Lake Anna is nice and is a scenic respite, and the new parkway segment was a quick and easy drive. But the route felt longer, maybe because I didn't know the roads and so didn't have that instant feeling for where I am at any given moment, and I think it was somewhat out of the way to the southeast.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 26, 2015, 05:22:50 PM
In general froggie's advice remains accurate, though of course an accident or other incident can cause problems at anytime. Yesterday a tree fell into the southbound lanes, so obviously that caused problems. The best rule of thumb is to listen to WTOP (103.5-FM), which airs traffic "on the 8s," i.e., x:08, x:18, x:28, etc.
Of course, except on Saturday, if you head south on I-95 in the morning, that road's HO/T lanes won't help you because they'll be pointed north.
I think for a single trip, or a single roundtrip, getting the E-ZPass Flex and then cancelling it would be more trouble than it's worth. One thought, however: Your profile says you live in Silver Spring. Do you ever go to Tysons Corner or out to the west via I-66? If you do make such trips more than once in a great while, the E-ZPass Flex might be worth it for you if you have three or more people in the car when you make that drive. Coming from Silver Spring via the Beltway, Tysons Corner Center ("Tysons I," the original mall where Nordstrom and Bloomingdale's are located) is substantially easier to reach via the Beltway's HO/T lanes than it is via the mainline. You take the Westpark Drive exit and then hang a left on the bridge and the mall parking is right there, whereas via Route 123 or Route 7 there are a couple of hassles. Of course, on the other hand the toll to Tysons from Maryland is usually minimal, but if that lets you get the E-ZPass Flex for free for use on longer trips, maybe it could be worthwhile for you.
When I was first married about 12 years ago, we had registered at Macy's and the only Macy's in the area was at Tyson's so we used to do the trip fairly often. When Macy's bought Hecht's, this option was no longer necessary.
The only reason we would regularly go into Northern Virginia would be to visit relatives who live in the Seven Corners area, almost exclusively on Sunday. I-495, Dulles Access Road, I-66, Lee Highway, Sycamore would be our general routing. So I've never had the need to use the express lanes, even though I don't live that far away.
It's similar to when I lived in Queens. I never had the need to make a toll crossing when I lived in Queens, so I did not have an EZ-Pass. It was only once I moved to the DC area, where I needed the EZ-Pass to get back to New York was when I finally invested the time into getting a transponder. First I got a MD EZ-Pass, then when they started charging the maintenance fee I got a MTA Bridge and Tunnel EZ Pass and have used it ever since with no complaints. Since most of my out of town driving trips are to NYC area, it seems to work the best for me.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2015, 02:26:52 PM
Seems there will be "purple striping" added to certain HO/T lane entrances. It sounds like the purple will be sort of like a shadow (for lack of a better term) alongside existing white skip lines. One wonders to what extent the average driver associates purple with managed lanes so far–perhaps it's more reasonable to think these markings might help people to learn to make that association (though on the Inner Loop of the Beltway, in particular, I'm sure there'll always be people who think the two left lanes near the Robinson Terminal are there for them to use to try to cut the line in the other lanes).
https://www.expresslanes.com/feature/1779
A photo of the purple striping is on Twitter. I'm typing this on my phone on a very bumpy subway ride, so I'll just link the tweet and someone else can post the photo if you like. I'm having a horrible time trying to type.
https://twitter.com/vaexpresslanes/status/623942131955142656
The purple striping is not all that visible in the dark. Much more prominent in the daytime in terms of clearly delineating that the express lanes are something different than the rest of the lanes...
Mike
I haven't seen the new striping at all except in that picture. It was not present on the Inner Loop last Saturday during my most recent trip on the Beltway, when I used the HO/T lanes to I-66 to go to Fair Oaks for a haircut, and I used the Fairfax County Parkway coming home due to traffic (when the VMS outside Fair Oaks says the Beltway is 7 miles and 20 minutes away, I go a different way!). I don't think I've driven at night since July 3!
Maybe I'll see the markings Saturday en route to the Inn at Little Washington. I'm thinking about using a route froggie mentioned once, that being Hume Road. I've used a portion of it in the past, but only a small portion, so I'm considering taking the HO/T lanes and then heading out I-66 to Marshall, dropping southwest, then cutting across Hume Road to Route 522. As I look at the map I see I could just keep straight on the road from Marshall. Anyone ever been that way such that you're able to comment on which is the nicer drive?
I've been on both a number of times. IMO, SR 635 (Hume Rd) is more scenic than SR 647 (Crest Hill Rd...the "straight on the road from Marshall"), though SR 647 would be faster.
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2015, 06:46:31 AM
I've been on both a number of times. IMO, SR 635 (Hume Rd) is more scenic than SR 647 (Crest Hill Rd...the "straight on the road from Marshall"), though SR 647 would be faster.
Thanks. We'll probably go that way, then, since timeliness isn't too important. Or I might skip both on the way down and instead use them on the way to Linden on the way home on Sunday (plan is to stop at Fox Meadow Winery to pick up a shipment they're holding for us).
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2015, 07:27:33 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2015, 06:46:31 AM
I've been on both a number of times. IMO, SR 635 (Hume Rd) is more scenic than SR 647 (Crest Hill Rd...the "straight on the road from Marshall"), though SR 647 would be faster.
Thanks. We'll probably go that way, then, since timeliness isn't too important. Or I might skip both on the way down and instead use them on the way to Linden on the way home on Sunday (plan is to stop at Fox Meadow Winery to pick up a shipment they're holding for us).
I have "done" Va. 688 (Leeds Manor Road) from U.S. 211 (Lee Highway) to Va. 55 and then immediately to I-66 at Exit 18 in Markham as part of my job (I had field staff doing work along U.S. 29/U.S. 15 at Remington and along I-66 at Markham).
Va. 688 is a reasonably scenic road, but it does not parallel 647 and 635 (indeed, it intersects 647 and 635).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2015, 11:51:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2015, 07:27:33 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2015, 06:46:31 AM
I've been on both a number of times. IMO, SR 635 (Hume Rd) is more scenic than SR 647 (Crest Hill Rd...the "straight on the road from Marshall"), though SR 647 would be faster.
Thanks. We'll probably go that way, then, since timeliness isn't too important. Or I might skip both on the way down and instead use them on the way to Linden on the way home on Sunday (plan is to stop at Fox Meadow Winery to pick up a shipment they're holding for us).
I have "done" Va. 688 (Leeds Manor Road) from U.S. 211 (Lee Highway) to Va. 55 and then immediately to I-66 at Exit 18 in Markham as part of my job (I had field staff doing work along U.S. 29/U.S. 15 at Remington and along I-66 at Markham).
Va. 688 is a reasonably scenic road, but it does not parallel 647 and 635 (indeed, it intersects 647 and 635).
I've used the segment from Route 55 north to Route 17 when I've wanted to go from Linden to Middleburg a couple of times. There's another winery along there (Naked Mountain) that a friend says is good, but I've never gotten around to stopping there. I have never used Leeds Manor south of Route 55, never had reason to do so. A couple of years ago we visited Narmada Winery near Amissville and then went to Linden Vineyards, so Leeds Manor would have worked, but my sat-nav sent us up Route 522 to Hume Road, then up Fiery Run Road, which was a narrow, twisty gravel road for part of the way. The latter segment was a nice drive to have done ONCE, if you know what I mean.
Going back to the purple lane markings, I rather doubt most drivers (and by most I mean "the vast majority of American drivers," not just local drivers or drivers from E-ZPass states) associate purple with electronic tolling or managed lanes. Outside of the E-ZPass states, there's no real reason why most people would associate purple with such lanes when you consider the logo colors employed by the various ETC brands around the country. Even in the E-ZPass states, most people with whom I've ridden as a passenger tend to look for the flashing yellow light (in the places where it's used to denote E-ZPass Only lanes), rather than looking for the purple sign, in part because you have the problem of places like the Dulles Toll Road where they have purple signs on just about every lane (and no flashing yellow light).
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2015, 05:35:34 PM
Going back to the purple lane markings, I rather doubt most drivers (and by most I mean "the vast majority of American drivers," not just local drivers or drivers from E-ZPass states) associate purple with electronic tolling or managed lanes. Outside of the E-ZPass states, there's no real reason why most people would associate purple with such lanes when you consider the logo colors employed by the various ETC brands around the country. Even in the E-ZPass states, most people with whom I've ridden as a passenger tend to look for the flashing yellow light (in the places where it's used to denote E-ZPass Only lanes), rather than looking for the purple sign, in part because you have the problem of places like the Dulles Toll Road where they have purple signs on just about every lane (and no flashing yellow light).
MdTA has (somewhat recently) put in yellow flashers over the E-ZPass only lanes at at least some of its plazas, consistent with New Jersey and Delaware.
But purple
is the standard MUTCD color for all transponder-based toll collection, across the entire nation, not just in E-ZPass territory.
Sure, but the MUTCD saying it doesn't mean a damn thing as to whether drivers are aware of it (much less whether it's been adopted anywhere!).
It can be argued that drivers are unaware because it's still a relatively new concept. But with the increasing proliferation of toll roads, toll lanes, and ETC, something had to be done in an attempt to standardize signage and markings...
We are in Little Washington. Used Hume Road. Thanks for the tip, very interesting drive. Felt like a different world.
Edited on Sunday after getting home to follow up: Yesterday we bailed off I-66 at Nutley Street (actually at the westbound ramp marked for the Metro stop) due to stopped traffic and I took Blake Lane/Jermantown Road to Route 29 on the west side of Fairfax City. Followed that out through the battlefield to pick up I-66 at Gainesville, then west to Marshall. Initially I missed the turn for Crest Hill Road, which wasn't well marked and I didn't have the destination loaded into the sat-nav, but I realized the mistake quite quickly and turned around in the driveway of what the sign said is a Buddhist temple south of Marshall. (It was not visible from the road and I chose not to explore.) Followed Crest Hill down to Hume Road and made the right turn. Both were nice roads, the type of roads on which 20 years ago I'd have been the idiot going inappropriately fast and enjoying the hills and twists but on which I now just like to take it easy and look at the scenery. Hume Road requires a bit of concentration west of its namesake village due to the blind curves and the risk of someone coming the other way cutting the corners too tightly. When we reached the end of the road, I turned south on Route 522 to Flint Hill (cops were out enforcing the 25-mph speed limit) and I made a right on Fodderstack Road, which I'd seen on a map. It's the back road down to Washington instead of taking 522 on down to Route 211 and then turning on US-211 Business. Nice way to go as well. It's such a short trip from Fairfax County, yet it feels like being in a different world altogether. The one downside about taking Fodderstack is that you come up from the back side of the Inn at Little Washington. There's something cool about arriving on Middle Street and coming around the curve and bam, there's the Inn right there in front of you (with no big sign or other overt marking, just a small sign next to the valet-parking dropoff spot).
Coming home we changed our plans took the direct route, up 211 to Warrenton and then up 29/66/Beltway. Skipped the winery and Leeds Manor Road.
Anyway, to return this to the thread topic, I didn't find the purple stripes on the Inner Loop near the Robinson Terminal to be especially noticeable even at about 11:30 AM on a Saturday. Of course I saw them, but then of course I knew they were there and was specifically looking for them. I really doubt they'd be visible at night (as Mapmikey noted). They start roughly beneath the first of the toll-rate signs at the same point where the first E-ZPass logo pavement marking appears. What I thought was maybe a bit odd is that the purple stripes don't go all the way up to where the pylons begin. They end where the right-side short skip lines end. I thought it might have made sense to run them all the way to the point where the lanes separate.
Others may disagree on them being noticeable, and I must note the ones near the Robinson Terminal were the only ones I saw. On the way home today there was just enough traffic on the Outer Loop that I didn't really get the chance to look for similar markings along the left side (especially since I was over towards the right). The markings seen in the Twitter picture linked further up the thread are definitely clearer to my eye than the ones I saw yesterday. So perhaps their clarity varies in different locations.
So we were southbound in the I-95 HO/T lanes early this afternoon heading out to Linden (why that route? Wanted to avoid PGA traffic near Gainesville). I planned to exit at either the truck stop slip ramp to take Route 234 or the Quantico flyover to take Route 619, whichever posed less of a traffic backup in the mainline (the latter option won).
Approaching the flyover near Potomac Mills ("95-DALE") around 1:00 PM, the toll rates were posted as $1.00 to Dumfries, $2.00 to Quantico, and $13.95 to the lanes' southern end. Wow! It makes me wonder why anyone would pay that toll. I think I'd take the Quantico flyover, exit immediately onto westbound Route 619 since the flyover becomes the exit lane, then cut a U-turn and head over to Route 1. (If you don't mind illegally driving on the shoulder you could go eastbound on 619, but I don't like doing that.) The express lane VMS was warning people to exit at Quantico but it looked to me like most people ahead of us didn't do so. What I don't know, since they were ahead of us and I was only going 70 mph, was whether they were HOVs who needn't worry about the toll. If it's free that might change your thought process on whether to stay in there.
This (http://liveblogwp.wtop.com/Event/Ask_the_Governor_Terry_McAuliffe_July_29) did not get much attention when Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe was on WTOP Radio last week, but it seems relevant to our topic here.
[
Emphasis added below.]
QuoteBut the governor also wants to add tolled express lanes to river crossings into D.C. and Maryland. McAuliffe said state transportation officials are negotiating to extend the 395 Express Lanes and address congestion as commuters enter the District.
QuoteToday the tolled lanes stop before the Arlington County line forcing cars that don't meet HOV restrictions back into the main lanes.
Quote"We need to fix this problem because it's creating tremendous amount of congestion."
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2015, 05:55:43 PM
So we were southbound in the I-95 HO/T lanes early this afternoon heading out to Linden (why that route? Wanted to avoid PGA traffic near Gainesville). I planned to exit at either the truck stop slip ramp to take Route 234 or the Quantico flyover to take Route 619, whichever posed less of a traffic backup in the mainline (the latter option won).
Approaching the flyover near Potomac Mills ("95-DALE") around 1:00 PM, the toll rates were posted as $1.00 to Dumfries, $2.00 to Quantico, and $13.95 to the lanes' southern end. Wow! It makes me wonder why anyone would pay that toll. I think I'd take the Quantico flyover, exit immediately onto westbound Route 619 since the flyover becomes the exit lane, then cut a U-turn and head over to Route 1. (If you don't mind illegally driving on the shoulder you could go eastbound on 619, but I don't like doing that.) The express lane VMS was warning people to exit at Quantico but it looked to me like most people ahead of us didn't do so. What I don't know, since they were ahead of us and I was only going 70 mph, was whether they were HOVs who needn't worry about the toll. If it's free that might change your thought process on whether to stay in there.
As I think you know, the original plan for the Express Lanes, before Arlington County fired suit against the Commonwealth and against the Federal Highway Administration, was for the tolling of the I-395 Express Lanes to go as far north as the Pentagon, or maybe as far north as the Virginia shoreline of the Potomac River (both were discussed). Now that D.C. has officially said it is interested in tolling its part of the express lanes across the river, it makes the objections raised by Arlington County look pretty foolish, and the main source of those objections is no longer on the Arlington County Board anyway.
If Transurban is granted a contract to convert the rest of the corridor to HOV/Toll lanes north from Turkeycock Run to the Potomac River, then IMO they should be required to extend the lanes
at least as far south as U.S. 17 (Exit 133, Warrenton Road), and ideally to U.S. 1/U.S. 17 at Massaponax (Exit 126).
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2015, 05:55:43 PM
So we were southbound in the I-95 HO/T lanes early this afternoon heading out to Linden (why that route? Wanted to avoid PGA traffic near Gainesville). I planned to exit at either the truck stop slip ramp to take Route 234 or the Quantico flyover to take Route 619, whichever posed less of a traffic backup in the mainline (the latter option won).
Approaching the flyover near Potomac Mills ("95-DALE") around 1:00 PM, the toll rates were posted as $1.00 to Dumfries, $2.00 to Quantico, and $13.95 to the lanes' southern end. Wow! It makes me wonder why anyone would pay that toll. I think I'd take the Quantico flyover, exit immediately onto westbound Route 619 since the flyover becomes the exit lane, then cut a U-turn and head over to Route 1. (If you don't mind illegally driving on the shoulder you could go eastbound on 619, but I don't like doing that.) The express lane VMS was warning people to exit at Quantico but it looked to me like most people ahead of us didn't do so. What I don't know, since they were ahead of us and I was only going 70 mph, was whether they were HOVs who needn't worry about the toll. If it's free that might change your thought process on whether to stay in there.
The disparity on the toll rates between Quantico and Garrisonville is always like this whenever the toll starts to go up. On Mondays the toll to Garrisonville was under $6 and on Thursday it was $18 but the Quantico toll is always around $2 or so. Sometimes the toll can be $15 to the end and it is still 15 minutes faster to use the lanes. If the VMS signs say the delays begin at a location equivalent to MM 148, it is still faster to stay in the HOT lanes but not by much. Anything further back is about a wash and then if the lanes are backed up to close to the SR 619 flyover it becomes noticeably faster to go to the main lanes.
I am still learning the nuances of whether staying or bailing os better, and whether the toll is worth it...
Mike
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2015, 11:23:02 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2015, 05:55:43 PM
So we were southbound in the I-95 HO/T lanes early this afternoon heading out to Linden (why that route? Wanted to avoid PGA traffic near Gainesville). I planned to exit at either the truck stop slip ramp to take Route 234 or the Quantico flyover to take Route 619, whichever posed less of a traffic backup in the mainline (the latter option won).
Approaching the flyover near Potomac Mills ("95-DALE") around 1:00 PM, the toll rates were posted as $1.00 to Dumfries, $2.00 to Quantico, and $13.95 to the lanes' southern end. Wow! It makes me wonder why anyone would pay that toll. I think I'd take the Quantico flyover, exit immediately onto westbound Route 619 since the flyover becomes the exit lane, then cut a U-turn and head over to Route 1. (If you don't mind illegally driving on the shoulder you could go eastbound on 619, but I don't like doing that.) The express lane VMS was warning people to exit at Quantico but it looked to me like most people ahead of us didn't do so. What I don't know, since they were ahead of us and I was only going 70 mph, was whether they were HOVs who needn't worry about the toll. If it's free that might change your thought process on whether to stay in there.
As I think you know, the original plan for the Express Lanes, before Arlington County fired suit against the Commonwealth and against the Federal Highway Administration, was for the tolling of the I-395 Express Lanes to go as far north as the Pentagon, or maybe as far north as the Virginia shoreline of the Potomac River (both were discussed). Now that D.C. has officially said it is interested in tolling its part of the express lanes across the river, it makes the objections raised by Arlington County look pretty foolish, and the main source of those objections is no longer on the Arlington County Board anyway.
If Transurban is granted a contract to convert the rest of the corridor to HOV/Toll lanes north from Turkeycock Run to the Potomac River, then IMO they should be required to extend the lanes at least as far south as U.S. 17 (Exit 133, Warrenton Road), and ideally to U.S. 1/U.S. 17 at Massaponax (Exit 126).
Yes, of course I remember. It's one of the reasons I thought the residents of Landmark Mews (the large and expensive townhouses just off I-395 near Turkeycock) were directing their ire at the wrong outfit when they were protesting the new exit flyover from the reversible lanes to the northbound mainline at that location. They were angry at VDOT instead of Arlington–although, in fairness, I think a northbound exit ramp should have been built there back when the reversible lanes were extended south in the 1990s, so perhaps Arlington shouldn't carry all the blame for that one.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
Yes, of course I remember. It's one of the reasons I thought the residents of Landmark Mews (the large and expensive townhouses just off I-395 near Turkeycock) were directing their ire at the wrong outfit when they were protesting the new exit flyover from the reversible lanes to the northbound mainline at that location. They were angry at VDOT instead of Arlington–although, in fairness, I think a northbound exit ramp should have been built there back when the reversible lanes were extended south in the 1990s, so perhaps Arlington shouldn't carry all the blame for that one.
I agree that their anger was misdirected.
But as was pointed out some time ago, the ramps at Turkeycock Run were little changed since the 1970's, when the I-95 Busway (as the HOV roadway was then called) was built, and terminated a short distance south of Va. 644.
The ramp to enter the managed lanes roadway from the southbound conventional lanes was pretty easy to build, so it was there from the start, I think so that buses which had stopped at Landmark Center (as many of the I-95 Busway runs did, especially in the off-peaks).
The other ramps (entering the managed roadway from the northbound conventional lanes and exiting the managed roadway and entering the southbound conventional lanes) were needed for express bus service to the Pentagon and to downtown Washington (and the location at Turkeycock Run was not perfect, as buses running on Va. 236 and wanting to enter the managed lanes had to fight their way up a very congested part of I-95 and later I-395 to Seminary Road).
So the objection by Arlington County got users on I-395 a way to exit when the managed lanes are pointed north.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 02, 2015, 01:14:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2015, 05:55:43 PM
So we were southbound in the I-95 HO/T lanes early this afternoon heading out to Linden (why that route? Wanted to avoid PGA traffic near Gainesville). I planned to exit at either the truck stop slip ramp to take Route 234 or the Quantico flyover to take Route 619, whichever posed less of a traffic backup in the mainline (the latter option won).
Approaching the flyover near Potomac Mills ("95-DALE") around 1:00 PM, the toll rates were posted as $1.00 to Dumfries, $2.00 to Quantico, and $13.95 to the lanes' southern end. Wow! It makes me wonder why anyone would pay that toll. I think I'd take the Quantico flyover, exit immediately onto westbound Route 619 since the flyover becomes the exit lane, then cut a U-turn and head over to Route 1. (If you don't mind illegally driving on the shoulder you could go eastbound on 619, but I don't like doing that.) The express lane VMS was warning people to exit at Quantico but it looked to me like most people ahead of us didn't do so. What I don't know, since they were ahead of us and I was only going 70 mph, was whether they were HOVs who needn't worry about the toll. If it's free that might change your thought process on whether to stay in there.
The disparity on the toll rates between Quantico and Garrisonville is always like this whenever the toll starts to go up. On Mondays the toll to Garrisonville was under $6 and on Thursday it was $18 but the Quantico toll is always around $2 or so. Sometimes the toll can be $15 to the end and it is still 15 minutes faster to use the lanes. If the VMS signs say the delays begin at a location equivalent to MM 148, it is still faster to stay in the HOT lanes but not by much. Anything further back is about a wash and then if the lanes are backed up to close to the SR 619 flyover it becomes noticeably faster to go to the main lanes.
I am still learning the nuances of whether staying or bailing os better, and whether the toll is worth it...
Transurban has to jack-up the toll high enough to provide free-flow service through that one-lane ramp where the 95 Express Lanes currently come to an end.
Only way to do that is with an excessive price.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2015, 04:20:37 PM
Transurban has to jack-up the toll high enough to provide free-flow service through that one-lane ramp where the 95 Express Lanes currently come to an end.
Only way to do that is with an excessive price.
Then it's not high enough...2 days a week the HOT lanes back up more than a mile from where the 2 lanes merge to one in advance of the end of the HOT lanes. Regularly it is 2 miles toward the end of the week.
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 02, 2015, 06:19:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2015, 04:20:37 PM
Transurban has to jack-up the toll high enough to provide free-flow service through that one-lane ramp where the 95 Express Lanes currently come to an end.
Only way to do that is with an excessive price.
Then it's not high enough...2 days a week the HOT lanes back up more than a mile from where the 2 lanes merge to one in advance of the end of the HOT lanes. Regularly it is 2 miles toward the end of the week.
You should complain to VDOT. If I understand it correctly, those lanes are supposed to be free-flow all the time. No matter how high the tolls have to go.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2015, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 02, 2015, 06:19:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2015, 04:20:37 PM
Transurban has to jack-up the toll high enough to provide free-flow service through that one-lane ramp where the 95 Express Lanes currently come to an end.
Only way to do that is with an excessive price.
Then it's not high enough...2 days a week the HOT lanes back up more than a mile from where the 2 lanes merge to one in advance of the end of the HOT lanes. Regularly it is 2 miles toward the end of the week.
You should complain to VDOT. If I understand it correctly, those lanes are supposed to be free-flow all the time. No matter how high the tolls have to go.
What exactly constrains them to provide free-flowing lanes?
I believe as per the agreement, the lanes are supposed to move at 45 mph or greater.
Maybe what they need to do is provide some sort of incentive to exit the HOT lanes into the general purpose lanes at an earlier point in time to reduce the congestion at the end of the HOT lanes.
Or...instead of dicking around with a 1 lane flyover ramp, just left-merge the lanes into the general purpose lanes and gently taper them down beyond the Garrisonville Rd interchange.
Seems like there's a good reason to provide a left-side merge provided it's barrier-separated to ensure people using it have no opportunity to try to cut across all lanes to access Exit 143. If there were no barrier, it'd pretty much be a given people would try to avoid the line for the flyover and then cut across no matter how much traffic it'd hold up.
If there was a left-sided merge, there would be no reason for through traffic to use the slower flyover ramp. That ramp could be signed for traffic wanting to use exit 143.
A similar setup can be found in Delaware on 495 South, merging into 95 near 141.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
I believe as per the agreement, the lanes are supposed to move at 45 mph or greater.
Maybe what they need to do is provide some sort of incentive to exit the HOT lanes into the general purpose lanes at an earlier point in time to reduce the congestion at the end of the HOT lanes.
Or...instead of dicking around with a 1 lane flyover ramp, just left-merge the lanes into the general purpose lanes and gently taper them down beyond the Garrisonville Rd interchange.
In a way they kinda already do. The disparity in tolls between the last two exits can be as much as $14-16.
They also explicitly put on their VMS to "Exit now to avoid delays" whenever the HOT lanes are backed up more than 2-3 miles.
if the 45 mph requirement is over the entire distance of the lanes, that would allow for quite a long queue and still comply...if you were averaging 70 mph for the first 20 miles you only have to average 23 mph over the last 9 miles to get a 29-mile average of 45 mph.
Mike
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
I believe as per the agreement, the lanes are supposed to move at 45 mph or greater.
Agreement between whom?
Quote from: Rothman on August 03, 2015, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
I believe as per the agreement, the lanes are supposed to move at 45 mph or greater.
Agreement between whom?
Trans-Urban and VDOT?
Quote from: Rothman on August 03, 2015, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
I believe as per the agreement, the lanes are supposed to move at 45 mph or greater.
Agreement between whom?
The concession agreement (http://www.vamegaprojects.com/tasks/sites/default/assets/File/pdf/95HOVHOT/Comprehensive_agreement/CA_82012/0_-_Comprehensive_Agreement.pdf) (.pdf) between the Commonwealth of Virginia (in the form of VDOT) and Transurban. See this on physical page 17 (
emphasis added):
Quote(a) The Concessionaire will impose congestion pricing on the HOT Lanes, which may include dynamic tolling with potential toll rate changes at frequent intervals and there will be no restrictions on toll rates, except as set forth in this Article 5. The Concessionaire's congestion pricing methodology:
(i) will not be inconsistent with the Department's plans and programs for highway system management of the overall transportation network in Northern Virginia;
(ii) when implemented, will assure that the Project will not become a federal Degraded Facility (as defined in 23 U.S.C. §166), as set forth in the Technical Requirements; and
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2015, 04:20:37 PM
Transurban has to jack-up the toll high enough to provide free-flow service through that one-lane ramp where the 95 Express Lanes currently come to an end.
Only way to do that is with an excessive price.
How do they achieve free-flow service when the lanes are functioning in the northbound direction?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 03, 2015, 01:18:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2015, 04:20:37 PM
Transurban has to jack-up the toll high enough to provide free-flow service through that one-lane ramp where the 95 Express Lanes currently come to an end.
Only way to do that is with an excessive price.
How do they achieve free-flow service when the lanes are functioning in the northbound direction?
The northern end doesn't choke down to a single-lane ramp. Two lanes continue north as HOV-3 lanes (no toll option for SOVs) during the morning rush hour and are open to all traffic at other times. A single-lane ramp constructed as part of the HO/T project provides an exit back to the general-purpose lanes; during rush hour, people not eligible for the HOV lanes have to use that.
So it's a different scenario at the northern end.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 03, 2015, 01:22:49 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 03, 2015, 01:18:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2015, 04:20:37 PM
Transurban has to jack-up the toll high enough to provide free-flow service through that one-lane ramp where the 95 Express Lanes currently come to an end.
Only way to do that is with an excessive price.
How do they achieve free-flow service when the lanes are functioning in the northbound direction?
The northern end doesn't choke down to a single-lane ramp. Two lanes continue north as HOV-3 lanes (no toll option for SOVs) during the morning rush hour and are open to all traffic at other times. A single-lane ramp constructed as part of the HO/T project provides an exit back to the general-purpose lanes; during rush hour, people not eligible for the HOV lanes have to use that.
So it's a different scenario at the northern end.
I believe that
some traffic exits at the Newington flyover ramp (north of Va. 286),
some more at the Franconia Springfield Parkway (Va. 289) and
some more traffic exits at the ramp in the Springfield Interchange (I-95/I-395/I-495).
Those three exit points reduce the traffic demand (somewhat) on that new ramp at Turkeycock Run.
I am bitter that it took me 2 hours to get to Fredeicksburg from the Beltway on Saturday morning. The price was really high...$14 for the last segment, but they still had a backup of well over 5+ miles in the HOT lanes. So much for the theory of "we will guarantee you a free-flowing ride no matter how high we have to raise the price" line that Transurban gave us back in the beginning.
Here's what the major problem is. They do segment based tolling. They need a segment at the south end, with a gigantic sign that says "you will be charged $50 if you don't exit right now!" Or something equally dramatic. Problem is that we roadgeeks pay attention to all the words on the sign and we know that 5 miles before we were told that it would cost $15 more to continue past that last exit. Normal drivers aren't making that distinction. They arrive at the Quantico flyover and they've already forgotten that the price differential between the last exit and the end of the lanes is huge. So they follow the guide signs. And get stuck in a jam that is easily worse than the regular lanes. Or perhaps they don't realize that the Quantico exit also takes you to 95 south.
What they need to do, yesterday, is get a second lane exiting onto 95 south merging in on the left. This way the Express lanes aren't disadvantaged by a 2 into 1 merge before the real merge point. This will make regular lane traffic worse, but is the only reasonable short term solution.
Should also be noted that a third of the northbound HOT lane traffic is exiting at the Beltway.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 03, 2015, 09:24:22 PM
Here's what the major problem is. They do segment based tolling. They need a segment at the south end, with a gigantic sign that says "you will be charged $50 if you don't exit right now!" Or something equally dramatic.
Like extending the managed lanes south to Massaponax? ;-)
Quote from: mtantillo on August 03, 2015, 09:24:22 PM
What they need to do, yesterday, is get a second lane exiting onto 95 south merging in on the left. This way the Express lanes aren't disadvantaged by a 2 into 1 merge before the real merge point. This will make regular lane traffic worse, but is the only reasonable short term solution.
The way I see it, it's a 2 into 0 merge, since the flyover traffic has to merge into regular traffic. And they have to contend with a weaving movement as well with the exiting traffic at that location.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2015, 08:48:29 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 03, 2015, 09:24:22 PM
What they need to do, yesterday, is get a second lane exiting onto 95 south merging in on the left. This way the Express lanes aren't disadvantaged by a 2 into 1 merge before the real merge point. This will make regular lane traffic worse, but is the only reasonable short term solution.
The way I see it, it's a 2 into 0 merge, since the flyover traffic has to merge into regular traffic. And they have to contend with a weaving movement as well with the exiting traffic at that location.
Yes. However... At the actual merge point on I-95, there is a 4 into 3 merge. Before that there is a 2 into 1 merge. So traffic in the HOT lanes is moving at half the speed of the regular lanes, because it first has to merge into one, and then merge into 95. Lets say each lane of I-95 accepts 1,000 vehicles per hour downstream from the merge. Then approaching the 4 into 3 merge, each lane is processing 750 vehicles per hour. But well upstream from the merge, each mainline lane is processing 750 vehicles per hour, but each HOT lane is only processing 375 vehicles per hour because of the 2 into 1 merge. If both HOT lanes were given the chance to merge into I-95, then all 5 lanes would process 600 vehicles per hour leading up to the merge point. So you'd get a 20% reduction in mainline capacity in return for an increase in capacity of the HOT lanes by more than 35%. Seems like a good tradeoff to me.
FYI, the real capacity of a lane is about 1,800 to 2,200 vehicles per hour, though when congested that number drops significantly. I used 1,000 for simplicity.
Bottom line (IMO) - the old bottleneck conditions that were so common when the managed lanes were pointing south at the Va. 234 (Exit 152, Dumfries Road) interchange (where the lanes merged into the left side of mainline I-95) have now "migrated" south to the Va. 610 (Exit 143, Garrisonville Road).
Great for southbound I-95 traffic not going further south than about (unsigned) Russell Road (Exit 148, MCB Quantico), not so good otherwise.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 04, 2015, 11:59:06 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2015, 08:48:29 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 03, 2015, 09:24:22 PM
What they need to do, yesterday, is get a second lane exiting onto 95 south merging in on the left. This way the Express lanes aren't disadvantaged by a 2 into 1 merge before the real merge point. This will make regular lane traffic worse, but is the only reasonable short term solution.
The way I see it, it's a 2 into 0 merge, since the flyover traffic has to merge into regular traffic. And they have to contend with a weaving movement as well with the exiting traffic at that location.
Yes. However... At the actual merge point on I-95, there is a 4 into 3 merge. Before that there is a 2 into 1 merge. So traffic in the HOT lanes is moving at half the speed of the regular lanes, because it first has to merge into one, and then merge into 95. Lets say each lane of I-95 accepts 1,000 vehicles per hour downstream from the merge. Then approaching the 4 into 3 merge, each lane is processing 750 vehicles per hour. But well upstream from the merge, each mainline lane is processing 750 vehicles per hour, but each HOT lane is only processing 375 vehicles per hour because of the 2 into 1 merge. If both HOT lanes were given the chance to merge into I-95, then all 5 lanes would process 600 vehicles per hour leading up to the merge point. So you'd get a 20% reduction in mainline capacity in return for an increase in capacity of the HOT lanes by more than 35%. Seems like a good tradeoff to me.
You missed my point. I'm talking about present day conditions. Since none of the HOT lanes continues as a thru lane and are forced to merge into the General lanes, the HOT lanes go from 2 lanes to 0 lanes (yes, with it briefly becoming 1 lane on the flyover). Furthermore, you have a weaving condition. Weaving conditions generally aren't the greatest to deal with on a highway in the first place (say, at a cloverleaf interchange). Forcing an entire 2 lane highway into a merge with a weaving condition makes things worse, as entering traffic has a tendency to want to cut in as soon as possibly, and exiting traffic wants to enter the exiting lane as soon as possible.
And none of this touches on the fact that even in free-flow conditions, HOT traffic is forced to slow down just to navigate the flyover ramp. Even if traffic on both roadways were flowing at the same speed, the traffic on the general purpose lanes have the advantage of continuing at that speed thru this area, whereas HOT traffic can't.
However, I wouldn't say lanes merging in from either side is ideal either. Let's say the left HOT lane merges in on the left of I-95; the right HOT lane flies over I-95 and merges in on the right. In free flowing conditions, traffic on I-95 would want to merge over a lane to allow ramp traffic to enter I-95. But if you have the merging taking place on both sides of the highway, you would have a condition where traffic on I-95's right lane would be merging left, and traffic on I-95's left lane merging right at the same time. This welcomes an extra danger to traffic on 95 as a lot of merging takes place in a short period of time; especially impacting motorist's blind spots. There are very few highways where you encounter an interchange with dual-sided merging at the same location, and I've never seen one where it's ideal.
Because of the (in theory) higher speed traffic using the HOT lanes, I would think the best case scenario here is to have both HOT lanes meet the general purpose lanes on the left, and eventually taper them down as I previously mentioned. 2nd best would be to taper the far left lane down, and then taper the far right lane down, so that way both the HOT lanes and general purpose lanes lose one continuous lane each, although the interchange in this area complicates that scenario. This would need to be done over the course of about a mile or more; not immediately at the merge point!
The flyover then can be signed for traffic wanting to utilize Exit 143. While it would then be mostly used for exiting traffic, no doubt some people would use it to continue on the general purpose lanes. The slower ramp speed will dissuade most from using it in that manner.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2015, 12:43:29 PM
However, I wouldn't say lanes merging in from either side is ideal either. Let's say the left HOT lane merges in on the left of I-95; the right HOT lane flies over I-95 and merges in on the right. In free flowing conditions, traffic on I-95 would want to merge over a lane to allow ramp traffic to enter I-95. But if you have the merging taking place on both sides of the highway, you would have a condition where traffic on I-95's right lane would be merging left, and traffic on I-95's left lane merging right at the same time. This welcomes an extra danger to traffic on 95 as a lot of merging takes place in a short period of time; especially impacting motorist's blind spots. There are very few highways where you encounter an interchange with dual-sided merging at the same location, and I've never seen one where it's ideal.
Because of the (in theory) higher speed traffic using the HOT lanes, I would think the best case scenario here is to have both HOT lanes meet the general purpose lanes on the left, and eventually taper them down as I previously mentioned. 2nd best would be to taper the far left lane down, and then taper the far right lane down, so that way both the HOT lanes and general purpose lanes lose one continuous lane each, although the interchange in this area complicates that scenario. This would need to be done over the course of about a mile or more; not immediately at the merge point!
The flyover then can be signed for traffic wanting to utilize Exit 143. While it would then be mostly used for exiting traffic, no doubt some people would use it to continue on the general purpose lanes. The slower ramp speed will dissuade most from using it in that manner.
It does seem that having ramps from both sides would significantly alleviate the traffic problems. First, there would be no need to merge the HOT lane traffic, as one lane can use the right hand ramp and one lane could use the left hand ramp. Second, it minimizes the amount of cars coming in from each side. Third, it separates the traffic that is ready to exit from traffic that will stay on I-95 for a long period.
The best solution for the problems on I-495 approaching the Legion Bridge (which I am much more familiar with), IMO, would be for the 4 lane Beltway general lanes to merge into 3 lanes, the 2 lane HOT roadway to merge into 1 lane, and then the two roadways to merge with each other for 1+3 = 4.
Perhaps something similar could work here at I-95 HOT's southern end. Well before I-95 shrinks any further, shrink the main lanes by one, shrink the HOT lanes by one, and merge the two roadways together. And perhaps this should be done much further away from existing exits to prevent the weaving issues.
Quote from: mrsman on August 09, 2015, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2015, 12:43:29 PM
Because of the (in theory) higher speed traffic using the HOT lanes, I would think the best case scenario here is to have both HOT lanes meet the general purpose lanes on the left, and eventually taper them down as I previously mentioned. 2nd best would be to taper the far left lane down, and then taper the far right lane down, so that way both the HOT lanes and general purpose lanes lose one continuous lane each, although the interchange in this area complicates that scenario. This would need to be done over the course of about a mile or more; not immediately at the merge point!
Perhaps something similar could work here at I-95 HOT's southern end. Well before I-95 shrinks any further, shrink the main lanes by one, shrink the HOT lanes by one, and merge the two roadways together.
You wouldn't want to merge the lanes down before the merge point. The HOT lanes aren't open 24/7. You would have a condition where, when the HOT lanes are open northbound, southbound traffic would be restricted to only 2 lanes for a period of time, which would cause huge amounts of congestion even in off peak periods.
Even though I mentioned it, even reducing the lane after the merge point...even a mile or so further away, would cause everyone to merge over if they were to maintain their current traffic flow. So I pretty much withdrawal that idea from my own suggestions!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 09, 2015, 08:59:43 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 09, 2015, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2015, 12:43:29 PM
Because of the (in theory) higher speed traffic using the HOT lanes, I would think the best case scenario here is to have both HOT lanes meet the general purpose lanes on the left, and eventually taper them down as I previously mentioned. 2nd best would be to taper the far left lane down, and then taper the far right lane down, so that way both the HOT lanes and general purpose lanes lose one continuous lane each, although the interchange in this area complicates that scenario. This would need to be done over the course of about a mile or more; not immediately at the merge point!
Perhaps something similar could work here at I-95 HOT's southern end. Well before I-95 shrinks any further, shrink the main lanes by one, shrink the HOT lanes by one, and merge the two roadways together.
You wouldn't want to merge the lanes down before the merge point. The HOT lanes aren't open 24/7. You would have a condition where, when the HOT lanes are open northbound, southbound traffic would be restricted to only 2 lanes for a period of time, which would cause huge amounts of congestion even in off peak periods.
Even though I mentioned it, even reducing the lane after the merge point...even a mile or so further away, would cause everyone to merge over if they were to maintain their current traffic flow. So I pretty much withdrawal that idea from my own suggestions!
It seems to me that this is part of the trade-offs. Do you sacrifice off-peak capacity to improve peak capacity? In some situations, the answer is yes.
In my area of Silver Spring, MD Georgia Avenue is a surface street with a reversible lane.
Northbound during off-peak hours: From Colesville Rd, you have 2 lanes northbound with parking. North of Spring Street, parking is prohibited so you have 3 lanes north. After crossing 16th Street, you still have 3 lanes (the reversible lane is reserved for left turns). At the Beltway a new lane enters from the left (4 northbound lanes), but the right lane tends to congest at the Beltway ramps. Just after Forest Glen Rd, the right lane ends.
Northbound druing morning rush (reverse peak): From Colesville Rd, you have 3 lanes northbound as parking is prohibited. North of Spring Street, parking is prohibited so you still have 3 lanes north. After crossing 16th Street, you still have 3 lanes (the reversible lane is reserved for southbound traffic, all left turns are prohibited). At the Beltway a new lane enters from the left (4 northbound lanes), but the right lane tends to congest at the Beltway ramps. Just after Forest Glen Rd, the right lane ends.
Northbound druing afternoon rush (peak): From Colesville Rd, you have 3 lanes northbound as parking is prohibited. North of Spring Street, parking is prohibited so you still have 3 lanes north. After crossing 16th Street, a new lane enters from the left. So you have 4 lanes (reversible lane is northbound, all left turns are prohibited). At the Beltway, you continue to have 4 northbound lanes, but the right lane tends to congest at the Beltway ramps. Just after Forest Glen Rd, the right lane ends.
So what happens is that drivers in the right lane will eventually have to merge back to the left to continue. In order for there to be 4 lanes between 16th adn the Beltway in peak times, the right lane is sacrificed by having this arrangement, instead of having 3 continuous lanes - which would be better for most drivers at all other times of the day. But the rush hour traffic is so bad, that its needs take precedence over the needs of traffic at other times.
Now, an alternative to simply tapering I-95 to 2 lanes in advance of the end of HOT lanes, is to do the following: 1) Merge the two HOT lanes into one, 2) Have the HOT lane become the left lane of I-95 where the HOT lanes end. At this point I-95 south is 4 lanes briefly. 3) Next, as we approach exit 143, the right lane of I-95 will be forced to exit. This accomplishes the same as what I suggested before, while giving right lane traffic the option of either exiting or merging. So in no place is I-95 ever 2 lanes. Rather, the impetus of merging is on the right lane of I-95 at all times, but it avoids the impetus of having both lanes of the HOT lanes merge into I-95 traffic at rush. The HOT lanes merge with each other and then end into an empty new left lane of I-95, with no further merging required.
Off-peak traffic when HOT is not operating will be slightly worse, but peak traffic will be a lot better.
VDOT is still wanting to add a 4th lane between Exit 143 and Exit 136. It is subject to the House Bill 2 evaluation process, so it is on hold awaiting the results of that.
It would make the most sense to make the HOT lane exit become the 4th lane, especially if there is no immediate plan to extend the HOT lanes to Fredericksburg...
BTW, on Thursday the last segment was $17 but the queue was not very long at all.
Mike
Quote from: mrsman on August 09, 2015, 05:07:42 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 09, 2015, 08:59:43 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 09, 2015, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2015, 12:43:29 PM
Because of the (in theory) higher speed traffic using the HOT lanes, I would think the best case scenario here is to have both HOT lanes meet the general purpose lanes on the left, and eventually taper them down as I previously mentioned. 2nd best would be to taper the far left lane down, and then taper the far right lane down, so that way both the HOT lanes and general purpose lanes lose one continuous lane each, although the interchange in this area complicates that scenario. This would need to be done over the course of about a mile or more; not immediately at the merge point!
Perhaps something similar could work here at I-95 HOT's southern end. Well before I-95 shrinks any further, shrink the main lanes by one, shrink the HOT lanes by one, and merge the two roadways together.
You wouldn't want to merge the lanes down before the merge point. The HOT lanes aren't open 24/7. You would have a condition where, when the HOT lanes are open northbound, southbound traffic would be restricted to only 2 lanes for a period of time, which would cause huge amounts of congestion even in off peak periods.
Even though I mentioned it, even reducing the lane after the merge point...even a mile or so further away, would cause everyone to merge over if they were to maintain their current traffic flow. So I pretty much withdrawal that idea from my own suggestions!
It seems to me that this is part of the trade-offs. Do you sacrifice off-peak capacity to improve peak capacity? In some situations, the answer is yes.
In my area of Silver Spring, MD Georgia Avenue is a surface street with a reversible lane.
Northbound during off-peak hours: From Colesville Rd, you have 2 lanes northbound with parking. North of Spring Street, parking is prohibited so you have 3 lanes north. After crossing 16th Street, you still have 3 lanes (the reversible lane is reserved for left turns). At the Beltway a new lane enters from the left (4 northbound lanes), but the right lane tends to congest at the Beltway ramps. Just after Forest Glen Rd, the right lane ends.
Northbound druing morning rush (reverse peak): From Colesville Rd, you have 3 lanes northbound as parking is prohibited. North of Spring Street, parking is prohibited so you still have 3 lanes north. After crossing 16th Street, you still have 3 lanes (the reversible lane is reserved for southbound traffic, all left turns are prohibited). At the Beltway a new lane enters from the left (4 northbound lanes), but the right lane tends to congest at the Beltway ramps. Just after Forest Glen Rd, the right lane ends.
Northbound druing afternoon rush (peak): From Colesville Rd, you have 3 lanes northbound as parking is prohibited. North of Spring Street, parking is prohibited so you still have 3 lanes north. After crossing 16th Street, a new lane enters from the left. So you have 4 lanes (reversible lane is northbound, all left turns are prohibited). At the Beltway, you continue to have 4 northbound lanes, but the right lane tends to congest at the Beltway ramps. Just after Forest Glen Rd, the right lane ends.
So what happens is that drivers in the right lane will eventually have to merge back to the left to continue. In order for there to be 4 lanes between 16th adn the Beltway in peak times, the right lane is sacrificed by having this arrangement, instead of having 3 continuous lanes - which would be better for most drivers at all other times of the day. But the rush hour traffic is so bad, that its needs take precedence over the needs of traffic at other times.
Now, an alternative to simply tapering I-95 to 2 lanes in advance of the end of HOT lanes, is to do the following: 1) Merge the two HOT lanes into one, 2) Have the HOT lane become the left lane of I-95 where the HOT lanes end. At this point I-95 south is 4 lanes briefly. 3) Next, as we approach exit 143, the right lane of I-95 will be forced to exit. This accomplishes the same as what I suggested before, while giving right lane traffic the option of either exiting or merging. So in no place is I-95 ever 2 lanes. Rather, the impetus of merging is on the right lane of I-95 at all times, but it avoids the impetus of having both lanes of the HOT lanes merge into I-95 traffic at rush. The HOT lanes merge with each other and then end into an empty new left lane of I-95, with no further merging required.
Off-peak traffic when HOT is not operating will be slightly worse, but peak traffic will be a lot better.
But Georgia Avenue is quite a different animal. There, you have buildings on either side. Widening the roadway isn't an option unless you destroy a lot of existing infrastructure.
At the southern end of the HOT lanes with 95, you have a wide median with trees. There is plenty of room for widening. They aren't limited by ROW factors. If anything, the only limiting factor is the manner in which the flyover itself was built. As long as they can get two lanes between the takeoff of that ramp and 95 North, they can easily push 2 lanes thru there, underneath Garrisonville Rd, and then merge traffic in.
Usually, ending a lane at an exit is a bad idea because, as much as the lane is posted as an Exit Only lane, people will still hang in the lane till the last moment. In a case like 95 here, that will happen quite often because the right lane is continuous for many miles. Yes, ending a lane at an interchange is done quite often, but it's not the preferred way of ending a lane. The preferred way is to taper a lane down after an interchange.
And you're going to be hard pressed to find an interstate where they would intentionally congest or otherwise inhibit smooth sailing of non-peak traffic just to accommodate a few hours of rush hour traffic. No transportation department would do that unless there was absolutely no other alternative option. In this area, there are numerous options.
Heh. Regarding exit-only lanes, people around here sometimes treat onramp acceleration lanes as passing lanes–that is, they're already on the highway, they pass the main interchange, and they cut to the right to use the acceleration lane to try to get three or four cars ahead.
I'm absolutely certain people would ignore "exit only."
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2015, 12:43:16 PM
Heh. Regarding exit-only lanes, people around here sometimes treat onramp acceleration lanes as passing lanes–that is, they're already on the highway, they pass the main interchange, and they cut to the right to use the acceleration lane to try to get three or four cars ahead.
I'm absolutely certain people would ignore "exit only."
Agreed. The best (as in worst) example (there are others, but this may be the worst in the D.C. area) - northbound I-395 in the District of Columbia crossing the Case Bridge and approaching the exit for 12th Street, S.W. No EXIT ONLY sign, but the pavement markings make it clear that's what the lane is for.
Aggressive drivers are rewarded by using the lane for 12th Street to queue jump and force their way back into non-exiting traffic.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 10, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2015, 12:43:16 PM
Heh. Regarding exit-only lanes, people around here sometimes treat onramp acceleration lanes as passing lanes–that is, they're already on the highway, they pass the main interchange, and they cut to the right to use the acceleration lane to try to get three or four cars ahead.
I'm absolutely certain people would ignore "exit only."
Agreed. The best (as in worst) example (there are others, but this may be the worst in the D.C. area) - northbound I-395 in the District of Columbia crossing the Case Bridge and approaching the exit for 12th Street, S.W. No EXIT ONLY sign, but the pavement markings make it clear that's what the lane is for.
Aggressive drivers are rewarded by using the lane for 12th Street to queue jump and force their way back into non-exiting traffic.
Indeed. That spot is immensely frustrating regardless of what lane you're in. If you're in the far right lane to use the exit, you get someone in front of you who's trying to cut (as you describe) or who didn't know it's exit-only. If you're in the second lane, which is an option lane, and you're planning to exit, you risk getting hit by someone who wants to stay on the highway and ignores the lines.
What I was thinking of is something I find more obnoxious. I used to see this every morning on my commute when I drove to work near Metro Center. I have not had that commute since 2008, but I have no reason to think the situation has changed. I don't know how clear this image is going to be, so to describe: Northbound I-395 backs up every weekday morning and all lanes are in a "stop-and-roll" situation at best. People who consider themselves too important to wait their turn will get in the right lane, then cut to the right at each onramp, drive down the acceleration lane, and either cut back in or continue on the shoulder. Note the red line I drew in the image–you can see just to the left of the I-395 shield how it traces the path of someone cutting across into the onramp. A lot of the people who do this are quite aggressive about it and essentially just assume the people using the ramp will yield to them. I always find myself thinking this sort of behavior has to be one reason why some people don't want to let anyone merge–they don't know who's using the acceleration lane properly and who's trying to cut.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FI-395%2520cutting%2520the%2520line_zpsh3aywh5h.png&hash=fbec258383fb766d2ebc24a9f29e9b113befdc22)
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
What I was thinking of is something I find more obnoxious. I used to see this every morning on my commute when I drove to work near Metro Center. I have not had that commute since 2008, but I have no reason to think the situation has changed. I don't know how clear this image is going to be, so to describe: Northbound I-395 backs up every weekday morning and all lanes are in a "stop-and-roll" situation at best. People who consider themselves too important to wait their turn will get in the right lane, then cut to the right at each onramp, drive down the acceleration lane, and either cut back in or continue on the shoulder. Note the red line I drew in the image–you can see just to the left of the I-395 shield how it traces the path of someone cutting across into the onramp. A lot of the people who do this are quite aggressive about it and essentially just assume the people using the ramp will yield to them. I always find myself thinking this sort of behavior has to be one reason why some people don't want to let anyone merge–they don't know who's using the acceleration lane properly and who's trying to cut.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FI-395%2520cutting%2520the%2520line_zpsh3aywh5h.png&hash=fbec258383fb766d2ebc24a9f29e9b113befdc22)
That is indeed obnoxious, and the drivers that do that maneuver are beyond obnoxious.
Only saving grace is that VSP troopers (and sometimes Arlington County police officers) will work that location when they have time, and reel in the violators (like shooting fish in a barrel).
I have to think that some of those violators that cut-off traffic on the ramp from Va. 110 southbound to I-395 northbound get banged with a reckless driving ticket. Same for the ones that pull a similar stunt at the ramp entering from U.S. 1 northbound.
Returning to HO/T lanes, I just read an article saying that Florida's Turnpike is building express toll lanes (it didn't mention an HOV exemption) on the Homestead Extension. That is, you're on a toll road and you're given the option to pay an additional toll to bypass traffic. I'd love to see how the Northern Virginia drivers who grouse about our HO/T lanes would react to that sort of thing!
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2015, 11:11:31 PM
Returning to HO/T lanes, I just read an article saying that Florida's Turnpike is building express toll lanes (it didn't mention an HOV exemption) on the Homestead Extension. That is, you're on a toll road and you're given the option to pay an additional toll to bypass traffic. I'd love to see how the Northern Virginia drivers who grouse about our HO/T lanes would react to that sort of thing!
To an extent, we have something similar in our area - although technically 2 different toll sections. Everyone going through I-95 in Baltimore will pay a toll at the Harbor Tunnel or the Fort McHenry Tunnel. Then, you are faced with the option of using the I-95 toll lanes. So your option is to pay a regular toll or to pay 2 tolls. I don't believe there is anyway to use the express lanes without also committing to use either tunnel.
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2015, 10:38:50 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2015, 11:11:31 PM
Returning to HO/T lanes, I just read an article saying that Florida's Turnpike is building express toll lanes (it didn't mention an HOV exemption) on the Homestead Extension. That is, you're on a toll road and you're given the option to pay an additional toll to bypass traffic. I'd love to see how the Northern Virginia drivers who grouse about our HO/T lanes would react to that sort of thing!
To an extent, we have something similar in our area - although technically 2 different toll sections. Everyone going through I-95 in Baltimore will pay a toll at the Harbor Tunnel or the Fort McHenry Tunnel. Then, you are faced with the option of using the I-95 toll lanes. So your option is to pay a regular toll or to pay 2 tolls. I don't believe there is anyway to use the express lanes without also committing to use either tunnel.
You are not committed. I-895 has one exit between the Express Lanes & the Tunnel; I-95 has 2 or 3 exits available.
Correct. If you're in the SB I-95 ETL's, you can exit directly to Moravia Rd, or indirectly to EB Lombard St (via 895), MD 150/Eastern Ave, O'Donnell St, or Keith Ave (via I-95).
Does anyone think the HOT Lanes will eventually encompass the entire 64-mile beltway? I think it should.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2015, 03:09:15 PM
Does anyone think the HOT Lanes will eventually encompass the entire 64-mile beltway? I think it should.
There is (likely) not room through Montgomery County between Pooks Hill (I-270 and Md. 355) and Md. 650 (New Hampshire Avenue) to add HOV/Toll lanes as have been build on the Virginia part of the road.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2015, 03:09:15 PM
Does anyone think the HOT Lanes will eventually encompass the entire 64-mile beltway? I think it should.
Probably not in our lifetimes. It would require a full rebuild or new span to the Francis Scott Key Bridge and it would require a rebuild of the Curtis Creek Bridge.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2015, 03:09:15 PM
Does anyone think the HOT Lanes will eventually encompass the entire 64-mile beltway? I think it should.
I do not believe that will happen. As cpzilliacus notes, there are serious space issues in the places where they might be most useful. In the areas where there is potentially some space, I'm not sure they're needed–through the Beltway's southeastern section in PG County (between, say, Route 210 and Central Avenue) traffic is quite heavy, but it usually moves well enough unless there's been an accident. It's also unclear whether Maryland authorities have any interest in the HO/T concept. Note the I-95 Express Toll Lanes northeast of Baltimore, which do not provide an HOV exemption of the sort seen with Virginia's lanes.
I suppose on the PG County segment I mentioned, priced managed lanes might provide a respite from the lunatic drivers who make that portion of the Beltway unpleasant, but if that were the reason for building them, I suppose the stupid "Lexus Lanes" terminology might be justified because having lanes like that just to provide a more peaceful ride smacks of a "luxury" feature.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on August 17, 2015, 03:14:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2015, 03:09:15 PM
Does anyone think the HOT Lanes will eventually encompass the entire 64-mile beltway? I think it should.
Probably not in our lifetimes. It would require a full rebuild or new span to the Francis Scott Key Bridge and it would require a rebuild of the Curtis Creek Bridge.
You do realize the Baltimore Beltway is not 64 miles around? I believe it's a tad over 50 miles.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on August 17, 2015, 03:14:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2015, 03:09:15 PM
Does anyone think the HOT Lanes will eventually encompass the entire 64-mile beltway? I think it should.
Probably not in our lifetimes. It would require a full rebuild or new span to the Francis Scott Key Bridge and it would require a rebuild of the Curtis Creek Bridge.
Traffic volumes on I-695/Md. 695 (the Baltimore Beltway) between the I-95 stack interchange near Overlea and the I-97 interchange at Glen Burnie (and including the toll-maintained section between Md. 10 (Exit 3) and Md. 151 (Exit 42)
do not currently justify anything of the sort.
CP: as Hoo noted, I think he was confusing the DC beltway with the Baltimore Beltway and/or confusing the Key Bridge with the Legion Bridge.
Quote from: froggie on August 17, 2015, 08:43:42 PM
CP: as Hoo noted, I think he was confusing the DC beltway with the Baltimore Beltway and/or confusing the Key Bridge with the Legion Bridge.
Opps. I didn't think that. But anyway to alter my statement I don't think the HOT lanes will ever encompass the whole beltway.
Quote from: froggie on August 17, 2015, 08:43:42 PM
CP: as Hoo noted, I think he was confusing the DC beltway with the Baltimore Beltway and/or confusing the Key Bridge with the Legion Bridge.
I was unsure whether he was confused or whether he was intentionally being snarky, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt!
Quote from: froggie on August 17, 2015, 08:43:42 PM
CP: as Hoo noted, I think he was confusing the DC beltway with the Baltimore Beltway and/or confusing the Key Bridge with the Legion Bridge.
I agree. I wanted to be very clear about where any expansion (HOV, HOV/Toll or ETL) would not be needed, unless the revitalization of the Sparrows Point steel mill site is wildly successful.
Has anyone noticed that the HOV access gates in Transurban territory (at least along the stretch of 395 that I drive) now have little orange flags on them? I never noticed it before (going back to the 1990s). GSV won't have it because it's new within the last few months.
Edit: Whoops, noticed this was posted back in June-
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 15, 2015, 03:01:00 PM
Transurban has begun to install red flags with white Xs onto the barrier gates along the 95 Express Lanes. You know. In case you don't notice 16 closed gates with red lights on them.
Mike
http://wtop.com/traffic/2015/09/virginia-may-extend-95-express-lanes-395/
QuoteVirginia could announce plans to extend the 95 Express Lanes along Interstate 395 to near the D.C. line by the end of the year, Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne says.
Quote"We continue to work with our partners there, and on the southern end also where we have the backup, and we're working through those and hope the governor will have an announcement on that sometime later this year," Layne says.
That'd make quick waste to the newly-built exit ramp at Turkeycock. At this point it makes the most sense just to HOT the entire middle carriageway its entire length.
If it got to that point, I wonder if DC would seek to turn the Rochambeau Bridge into a peak-hour tolled express bridge, seeing as there would be a free alternative on Arland Williams in the morning and George Mason in the afternoon.
Even if they didn't run the bridge tolling themselves, Transurban would still heavily lobby in favor of it, because they could then advertise a guaranteed express route from the southern end of the HOT complex all the way to downtown DC. You'd still get a backup as express bridge traffic filters into downtown, but you'd still pass a significant portion of the queue.
It would also benefit South Arlington Metrobuses which use 395 to get to the Pentagon, because there would be no more free-use hours on the 395 HOT lanes. So for example, a bus traveling to the Pentagon entering 395 around 9:30 AM would use the HOT lanes, and not have to compete against the people who have historically waited until 9 AM to enter into the HOV facility (and likewise, 6 PM on their trip home).
DC authorities have made very preliminary comments about the idea of HO/T lanes on I-295, I-695, and I-395. I think we discussed it further back in this thread and cpzilliacus noted if it came to pass, it'd make it harder for Arlington to put up a serious fight against HO/T on I-395.
I wonder whether Arlington has changed its position. Their intransigence is why the lanes now end at Turkeycock.
I don't think the new exit at Turkeycock would be useless with the extension of HO/T, though. I thought that ramp should have been built sooner when HOV was extended south from Springfield in the early 1990s. It helps take some of the strain off the mainline through Springfield and at the point where Beltway traffic merges in. Remember previously anyone not heading at least to Route 27 had to exit at the Newington flyover and go through Springfield. The new Turkeycock ramp alleviates that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2015, 02:22:18 PM
DC authorities have made very preliminary comments about the idea of HO/T lanes on I-295, I-695, and I-395. I think we discussed it further back in this thread and cpzilliacus noted if it came to pass, it'd make it harder for Arlington to put up a serious fight against HO/T on I-395.
I wonder whether Arlington has changed its position. Their intransigence is why the lanes now end at Turkeycock.
I don't think the new exit at Turkeycock would be useless with the extension of HO/T, though. I thought that ramp should have been built sooner when HOV was extended south from Springfield in the early 1990s. It helps take some of the strain off the mainline through Springfield and at the point where Beltway traffic merges in. Remember previously anyone not heading at least to Route 27 had to exit at the Newington flyover and go through Springfield. The new Turkeycock ramp alleviates that.
Once the Mark Center ramp opens up, and IF the remainder of 395 gets the HOT treatment, who would actually need to get off at Turkeycock? Somebody going to Ft. Belvoir Proving Ground Site would use the relatively-new single-purpose ramp near Backlick, somebody going to Mark Center would use the soon-to-be-new Seminary exit, and the remainder would go to Pentagon/City or continue on to DC.
The only drivers I could see finding utility in the Turkeycock exit at that point would be:
1) HOT drivers who happen to want to save money by getting off the HOT lanes if traffic in the general lanes is within their tolerance (thereby avoiding the last tolling segments through Alexandria and Arlington).
2) HOT drivers who need to get off at Duke Street. Possibly King Street, Shirlington and Glebe, as drivers using the Seminary off-ramp would need to go through a few light cycles to get to those locations via Van Dorn, Beauregard/Walter Reed, or back on the 395 general lanes.
People in column 1, I'm sure exist. I just don't know how many people fall into column 2. Outside of maybe retail workers who live in Prince William and southern Fairfax County who work in the Landmark and Shirlington areas, but I doubt that low-wage workers would be taking HOT lanes anyway.
That ramp near Backlick isn't an exit. It's entrance-only and only when the reversible lanes point south.
The Turkeycock ramp will be important for managing the tolls because it allows for a segment break such that from there north to DC can be tolled separately. If the toll is too high for your taste, you exit. I could see it being pretty high at certain times.
It's also useful for people who might want to use Exit 8A towards Clarendon or Ballston, though it might be faster (once the current construction on Route 27 above Route 110 is done) to stay in the reversible lanes, exit towards Memorial Bridge, and backtrack on Route 50. I never go that way in the mornings so I don't know for sure.
Don't underestimate the number of people who do use Duke Street to connect to various places. May be more of them when the TSA moves to its new headquarters on Eisenhower Avenue in a few years. It can often be faster to go HO/T to Duke, then down Van Dorn to Eisenhower, rather than putting up with the morning slowdown on the Outer Loop.
I stand corrected about the Backlick ramp - Although with where the barrier is (on Heller Road), in theory they could be able to turn it into an off-HOT-onto-local ramp in the AM. Drivers would come up off the ramp and instead of turning left into FBNA, just continue straight onto the northbound general purpose 95 lanes.
Agree that Turkeycock ramp would help a notional Springfield-to-Clarendon/Ballston commuter, but are there really that many of them? I would figure that more would elect to live west of there and take the western approach highways (66, US 50, US 29, etc) I could believe Rosslyn taking on a lot of commuters from the southern suburbs, but Rosslyn has more one-seat rides on transit from the southern suburbs as well (Blue Line, PRTC, etc)
We'll see what TSA yields. Like BRAC-133, this move will take a lot people who were near Metro, in this case right above the Pentagon City Metro, and move them to a sort-of-close, but-not-really-that-close Metro location.
Washington Post: Key decision on Virginia toll lanes lawsuit to come in a few weeks (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/key-decision-on-virginia-toll-lanes-lawsuit-to-come-in-a-few-weeks/2015/09/10/78e42bd2-5720-11e5-b8c9-944725fcd3b9_story.html)
QuoteA federal judge will decide in a few weeks if he will throw out or move forward with a class-action lawsuit claiming that the company in charge of running the Interstate 495 toll lanes in Northern Virginia hit drivers with excessive administrative fees and fines, some reaching into the tens of thousands of dollars for minor violations.
QuoteU.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris heard arguments on the suit Thursday in federal district court in Alexandria, asking questions of all those involved and offering few hints about which way he might be leaning. He said he would decide whether he should move the case forward or throw it out in a couple weeks after reviewing a transcript of the hearing.
QuoteThe suit alleges that Transurban essentially preyed on toll lane users who had problems with their E-ZPass devices, slapping them with steep administrative fees when they did not immediately pay for driving on toll roads, then following up with claims in civil court for thousands of dollars. The suit names seven toll lane users from Maryland and Virginia as plaintiffs who claim the company wanted to collect nearly $70,000 in penalties and fees from them for just more than $200 in inadvertently missed tolls.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2015, 02:22:18 PM
DC authorities have made very preliminary comments about the idea of HO/T lanes on I-295, I-695, and I-395. I think we discussed it further back in this thread and cpzilliacus noted if it came to pass, it'd make it harder for Arlington to put up a serious fight against HO/T on I-395.
DDOT seems to be serious about pricing certain parts of its highway network (something I
personally agree with, BTW). Dr. Gridlock wrote about it back in April 2014 here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/plans-for-hot-lanes-on-14th-street-bridge-and-dc-freeways-still-just-warming-up/2014/04/19/d221f304-c4d3-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_story.html) (I see that Adam [Froggie] commented, but you did not).
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2015, 02:22:18 PM
I wonder whether Arlington has changed its position. Their intransigence is why the lanes now end at Turkeycock.
Back in July 2015, Gov. Terry McAuliffe said this on WTOP's "Ask the Governor" radio show (http://liveblogwp.wtop.com/Event/Ask_the_Governor_Terry_McAuliffe_July_29) [
emphasis added]:
QuoteBut the governor also wants to add tolled express lanes to river crossings into D.C. and Maryland. McAuliffe said state transportation officials are negotiating to extend the 395 Express Lanes and address congestion as commuters enter the District.
There have been
no days of rage and
no threats of litigation from Arlington's elected officials since Gov. McAuliffe said that (in a reasonably public venue). And the primary ringleader of such opposition (including the federal lawsuit) on the Arlington County Board when the deal with Transurban was being discussed previously has resigned his seat and is now doing other things.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2015, 02:22:18 PM
I don't think the new exit at Turkeycock would be useless with the extension of HO/T, though. I thought that ramp should have been built sooner when HOV was extended south from Springfield in the early 1990s. It helps take some of the strain off the mainline through Springfield and at the point where Beltway traffic merges in. Remember previously anyone not heading at least to Route 27 had to exit at the Newington flyover and go through Springfield. The new Turkeycock ramp alleviates that.
I agree. It allows traffic to leave the managed lanes to get to places along and near Va. 236 (Duke Street) when needed. The ramp at Seminary Road will be a rather clunky way to get to a lot of destinations in Alexandria east of I-395.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2015, 07:33:28 PM
The ramp at Seminary Road will be a rather clunky way to get to a lot of destinations in Alexandria east of I-395.
Until VA builds HOT facilities on the Beltway east of Springfield. Isn't that the logical conclusions of all of this - HOT facilities on 3/95, 66, and 495?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2015, 07:33:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2015, 02:22:18 PM
DC authorities have made very preliminary comments about the idea of HO/T lanes on I-295, I-695, and I-395. I think we discussed it further back in this thread and cpzilliacus noted if it came to pass, it'd make it harder for Arlington to put up a serious fight against HO/T on I-395.
DDOT seems to be serious about pricing certain parts of its highway network (something I personally agree with, BTW). Dr. Gridlock wrote about it back in April 2014 here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/plans-for-hot-lanes-on-14th-street-bridge-and-dc-freeways-still-just-warming-up/2014/04/19/d221f304-c4d3-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_story.html) (I see that Adam [Froggie] commented, but you did not).
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2015, 02:22:18 PM
I wonder whether Arlington has changed its position. Their intransigence is why the lanes now end at Turkeycock.
Back in July 2015, Gov. Terry McAuliffe said this on WTOP's "Ask the Governor" radio show (http://liveblogwp.wtop.com/Event/Ask_the_Governor_Terry_McAuliffe_July_29) [emphasis added]:
QuoteBut the governor also wants to add tolled express lanes to river crossings into D.C. and Maryland. McAuliffe said state transportation officials are negotiating to extend the 395 Express Lanes and address congestion as commuters enter the District.
There have been no days of rage and no threats of litigation from Arlington's elected officials since Gov. McAuliffe said that (in a reasonably public venue). And the primary ringleader of such opposition (including the federal lawsuit) on the Arlington County Board when the deal with Transurban was being discussed previously has resigned his seat and is now doing other things.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2015, 02:22:18 PM
I don't think the new exit at Turkeycock would be useless with the extension of HO/T, though. I thought that ramp should have been built sooner when HOV was extended south from Springfield in the early 1990s. It helps take some of the strain off the mainline through Springfield and at the point where Beltway traffic merges in. Remember previously anyone not heading at least to Route 27 had to exit at the Newington flyover and go through Springfield. The new Turkeycock ramp alleviates that.
I agree. It allows traffic to leave the managed lanes to get to places along and near Va. 236 (Duke Street) when needed. The ramp at Seminary Road will be a rather clunky way to get to a lot of destinations in Alexandria east of I-395.
Perhaps the people of Arlington have had a change of heart. They opposed the HOT lanes as they were being proposed but would now be willing to consider them now that the rest of the network is in operation.
I don't see how converting the existing HOV lanes to HOT would be detrimental to Arlington. By avoiding people jostling between the HOT lanes and the general lanes, there will be fewer backups for all on 395 (and fewer people exiting the highway to avoid backups).
I could see Arlington being concerned about a highway widening, but I believe that traffic would flow pretty well in the express lanes even without a widening if the rules for using the lanes were consistent throughout I-395.
I rather doubt the Democrat board of supervisors in Arlington would care if their constituents supported HO/T lanes. The board has been totally transit-focused for years. Maybe things might change since that pro-streetcar guy lost his seat.
(This is not to say it's wrong for Arlington to focus more on transit, given its location and the demographics along Columbia Pike. But to focus solely on transit while fighting all road improvements is short-sighted.)
I'm not seeing much potential utility to Arlington residents. The only point in Arlington where one could presently pick up the HO/T lanes would be the Shirlington Rotary. I can't imagine that there are too many people solo drivers in South Arlington/Northern Alexandria who would pay a toll to go a short distance on 395 to the Pentagon/14th Street Bridge, particularly as South Arlington is pretty well-served by Metrobus and ART.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2015, 01:25:39 PM
I rather doubt the Democrat board of supervisors in Arlington would care if their constituents supported HO/T lanes.
I know of no latent demand for HO/T in South Arlington. With the cancellation of the streetcar, the only real big possible project which would benefit the area is a Columbia Pike Metro line (which in fact was part of the original plan, and stub tunnel exists near the Pentagon which was built back in the 70s so as to allow a future Columbia Pike line).
Again, while the distance commuters (southern Fairfax and points beyond) might really see some benefit from HO/T, I just don't see it for these parts. Particularly with the limited access points (I can't picture any more being built either).
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2015, 01:25:39 PM
But to focus solely on transit while fighting all road improvements is short-sighted
That's not a fair assessment. Arlington is effectively fully built-out. It's not like there's fallow land where one could build a 4-lane parkway like you have out in Loudoun County or something like that. Or the newly-built Jeff Todd Way down by Belvoir. Much of the road budget is going to go towards maintenance because there just really aren't any more roads to be built or "improved" (which is usually code for widening). For instance, Columbia Pike was is presently in a project of phased repaving and utility underground-ing. What more do you want on that corridor? There's no room or desire to expand it. So you maintain it as they did and call it a day.
Interestingly enough, there are some new roads being built in Arlington, such as near Columbia Pike and in Pentagon City. In both cases, the new roads are built in tandem with new developments, and they are built in concert with the existing road network in order to build a denser road grid.
MD could use them between VA 267 and I-270. Traffic really moves, but if anything bad happens, it quickly becomes The 405 and is bumper to bumper traffic.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 22, 2015, 10:11:53 PM
MD could use them between VA 267 and I-270. Traffic really moves, but if anything bad happens, it quickly becomes The 405 and is bumper to bumper traffic.
I just drove on this section of the beltway about a week ago. I think it's the only part of the beltway that is only three lanes wide in each direction.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on October 11, 2015, 12:37:37 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 22, 2015, 10:11:53 PM
MD could use them between VA 267 and I-270. Traffic really moves, but if anything bad happens, it quickly becomes The 405 and is bumper to bumper traffic.
I just drove on this section of the beltway about a week ago. I think it's the only part of the beltway that is only three lanes wide in each direction.
The stretch between I-270 and I-270-Y is indeed the only section of the Beltway that's only 3 lanes each way. Nothing would be gained by adding lanes to this stretch.
Quote from: davewiecking on October 11, 2015, 06:37:49 AM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on October 11, 2015, 12:37:37 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 22, 2015, 10:11:53 PM
MD could use them between VA 267 and I-270. Traffic really moves, but if anything bad happens, it quickly becomes The 405 and is bumper to bumper traffic.
I just drove on this section of the beltway about a week ago. I think it's the only part of the beltway that is only three lanes wide in each direction.
The stretch between I-270 and I-270-Y is indeed the only section of the Beltway that's only 3 lanes each way. Nothing would be gained by adding lanes to this stretch.
That's true, although it would be nice if they had a way of widening the inner loop from I-270 to at least Connecticut by one more lane. Effectively, only 2 of the Beltway lanes continue as the right lane forces an exit onto MD 355. If all 3 lanes could continue for another mile that would be a big help.
But even still, it wouldn't change the fact as correctly noted above that between the 270 and the spur, the beltway widening would not be helpful since the other parts are too narrow.
Washington Post: Virginia to extend I-95/395 HOT lanes north to D.C. line (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/11/20/virginia-to-extend-i-95395-hot-lanes-north-to-d-c-line/)
QuoteThe Virginia government and a private partner have reached agreement on another expansion of the HOT lanes network in the D.C. region. This program will take the 95 Express Lanes north eight miles to the D.C. line, replacing the High-Occupancy Vehicle system on Interstate 395 up to the area near the Pentagon.
QuoteState Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said in an interview that VDOT and the Transurban company are in accord on a plan to add an extra lane to today's two-lane HOV system while making relatively minor adjustments in the rest of the I-395 set up. Layne informed the local governments of Arlington and Fairfax counties and the city of Alexandria about the plan Friday, and said he was looking forward to working with them on advancing the program to construction in 2017, with an opening two years later.
QuoteAs was the case with the 95 Express Lanes, which opened in December, drivers who meet the HOV3 rules will be able to travel for free in the I-395 express lanes, as long as they have an E-ZPass Flex transponder switched to the HOV setting. Drivers who don't meet the three-person carpool standard will have access to these new high-occupancy toll lanes if they are willing to pay a variable toll that rises as high as it takes to maintain free-flowing traffic. Those drivers would pay the toll via E-ZPass.
QuoteThe new plan, Layne said, will guarantee funding for new or enhanced transit service and carpooling along the I-95/395 corridor. It scratches an old plan that would have built a new ramp at the Shirlington interchange on I-395.
QuoteThe HOV ramp now under construction at Seminary Road, near the Mark Center, still will be for HOV traffic only, even under the HOT lanes plan. The drivers who enter the HOT lanes there will have to meet the HOV rules, so toll payers will be excluded. (They've yet to work out exactly how they're going to do that.)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 20, 2015, 05:42:46 PM
QuoteThe Virginia government and a private partner have reached agreement on another expansion of the HOT lanes network in the D.C. region. This program will take the 95 Express Lanes north eight miles to the D.C. line, replacing the High-Occupancy Vehicle system on Interstate 395 up to the area near the Pentagon.
To not include DC. I presume Transurban will have their gaze fixed on HOT-ing the middle span of the 14th Street Bridge complex (Rochambeau Bridge span). Plenty of new challenges to clear there (DC and federal regulations).
QuoteState Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said in an interview that VDOT and the Transurban company are in accord on a plan to add an extra lane to today's two-lane HOV system while making relatively minor adjustments in the rest of the I-395 set up. Layne informed the local governments of Arlington and Fairfax counties and the city of Alexandria about the plan Friday, and said he was looking forward to working with them on advancing the program to construction in 2017, with an opening two years later.
Current arrangement is Shoulder/Reversible Lane/Reversible Lane/Shoulder. Figure they'll just remove one shoulder and maybe jigger with the lane widths a little.
QuoteAs was the case with the 95 Express Lanes, which opened in December, drivers who meet the HOV3 rules will be able to travel for free in the I-395 express lanes, as long as they have an E-ZPass Flex transponder switched to the HOV setting. Drivers who don't meet the three-person carpool standard will have access to these new high-occupancy toll lanes if they are willing to pay a variable toll that rises as high as it takes to maintain free-flowing traffic. Those drivers would pay the toll via E-ZPass.
QuoteThe new plan, Layne said, will guarantee funding for new or enhanced transit service and carpooling along the I-95/395 corridor. It scratches an old plan that would have built a new ramp at the Shirlington interchange on I-395.
As a resident within earshot of 395, I'll be happy is Transurban pays for more Metrobus/ART routes in that area.
QuoteThe HOV ramp now under construction at Seminary Road, near the Mark Center, still will be for HOV traffic only, even under the HOT lanes plan. The drivers who enter the HOT lanes there will have to meet the HOV rules, so toll payers will be excluded. (They've yet to work out exactly how they're going to do that.)
That'll be complicated. I guess you can only use the ramp if your EZ-Pass FLEX is in carpool mode. Boy that's going to be confusing for people.
I read the general overview, and it looks like the only place that is going to get major work done is the Eads Street off-ramp. My guess is that Transurban wants to be able to get their customers off of the HOT carriageway faster (it usually backs up in the morning). Bus commuters will also benefit, if they figure out a way to give precedence to people coming off of the HOT carriageway into the Pentagon over the general-purpose northbound lanes.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 21, 2015, 10:06:46 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 20, 2015, 05:42:46 PM
The Virginia government and a private partner have reached agreement on another expansion of the HOT lanes network in the D.C. region. This program will take the 95 Express Lanes north eight miles to the D.C. line, replacing the High-Occupancy Vehicle system on Interstate 395 up to the area near the Pentagon.
I read the general overview, and it looks like the only place that is going to get major work done is the Eads Street off-ramp. My guess is that Transurban wants to be able to get their customers off of the HOT carriageway faster (it usually backs up in the morning). Bus commuters will also benefit, if they figure out a way to give precedence to people coming off of the HOT carriageway into the Pentagon over the general-purpose northbound lanes.
I'm curious how the northern part of the express roadway will be treated: the dual-carriageway non-reversible 4 lane portion that starts just south of the VA-27 interchange and continues into DC. This stretch includes the Eads Street interchange.
The part about the new ramp at Seminary Road is potentially very confusing. If only HOVs can use it, does that mean HOVs with an E-ZPass Flex, or does it include vehicles with three occupants but no Flex such that the driver paid the toll? I see what Dr. Gridlock's story says about excluding toll-payers, but I also see it says they haven't decided how to make it work, and I also think it's pretty reasonable to assume he's using "toll-payers" to mean SOVs and HOV-2s. (Some people tend to overlook the option for someone eligible for the free ride to pay the toll due to not having three people often enough to warrant getting a Flex.)
We used the I-95 express lanes twice yesterday on a round trip to Charlottesville and when I told my wife about the plan for the Seminary Road ramp, her reaction was that she thinks they'll wind up changing it because having a single exit with different rules won't work unless it's a special situation like the CIA exit on the GW Parkway or the NASA-Goddard exit on the BW Parkway, both of which are situations where it's a direct exit into an ID-restricted area. The new ramp at Seminary doesn't do that–it'll connect directly to the interchange's top level. In theory I could use that ramp going to the mechanic I use near Bailey's Crossroads, for example. There had been a proposal for an HOV ramp directly into/out of the BRAC facility, but it was defeated because of the impact it would have had on the forested nature preserve just south of the property.
Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep the bridge operating as it does now.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2015, 08:30:02 AM
Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep the bridge operating as it does now.
Wouldn't that be a good thing in the eyes of Transurban? I think you've just made their pitch for them - "Avoid the recurring 14th St Bridge slowdowns, instead, use the guaranteed high-speed lanes all the way to the DC lines." VA already supports HOT lanes, DC has no reason to oppose them, so I don't know what your constituency against HOT lanes will be.
Perhaps the feds, but since the deal would be done under a P3, it could allay conservatives on the relevant committees by making it a "business operation" versus "government tolls".
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 22, 2015, 10:20:18 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2015, 08:30:02 AM
Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep the bridge operating as it does now.
Wouldn't that be a good thing in the eyes of Transurban? I think you've just made their pitch for them - "Avoid the recurring 14th St Bridge slowdowns, instead, use the guaranteed high-speed lanes all the way to the DC lines." VA already supports HOT lanes, DC has no reason to oppose them, so I don't know what your constituency against HOT lanes will be.
Perhaps the feds, but since the deal would be done under a P3, it could allay conservatives on the relevant committees by making it a "business operation" versus "government tolls".
In the eyes of Transurban, of course it would. In the eyes of VDOT and everyone else, I doubt it. Consider the heat VDOT's under due to the afternoon schemozzle down at Exit 143 where the express lanes end. I-395 is horrid already and if they cause a bigger backup by removing the general access to the inner span at the 14th Street Bridge, I'd expect quite a backlash from the driving public. As it is I'm thankful my commute no longer takes me over the 14th Street Bridge. I drove that way from 2000 to 2008 and it was bad for my blood pressure.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2015, 04:08:45 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 22, 2015, 10:20:18 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2015, 08:30:02 AM
Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep the bridge operating as it does now.
Wouldn't that be a good thing in the eyes of Transurban? I think you've just made their pitch for them - "Avoid the recurring 14th St Bridge slowdowns, instead, use the guaranteed high-speed lanes all the way to the DC lines." VA already supports HOT lanes, DC has no reason to oppose them, so I don't know what your constituency against HOT lanes will be.
Perhaps the feds, but since the deal would be done under a P3, it could allay conservatives on the relevant committees by making it a "business operation" versus "government tolls".
In the eyes of Transurban, of course it would. In the eyes of VDOT and everyone else, I doubt it. Consider the heat VDOT's under due to the afternoon schemozzle down at Exit 143 where the express lanes end. I-395 is horrid already and if they cause a bigger backup by removing the general access to the inner span at the 14th Street Bridge, I'd expect quite a backlash from the driving public. As it is I'm thankful my commute no longer takes me over the 14th Street Bridge. I drove that way from 2000 to 2008 and it was bad for my blood pressure.
If the "stop $17 tolls" issue in the most recent local elections means anything, I would have my doubts. The precedent has now already been set for taking away non-tolled lanes, with the now-approved 66 plan. Transurban will market towards bus commuters (less backup on your routes) and the "guaranteed arrival" angle to distant commuters. With the high income of the area, I think the preferences are coming through...people from distant suburbs are willing to pay pretty steep prices to ensure their SOV commute is predictable and as fast as possible.
Technical details, such as end-of-HOT bottlenecks, won't make or break this deal.
Like all the other HO/T projects, many people will argue against it, and it will still be implemented.
All Transurban has to do is get some relevant committee members in Richmond to be on board with it.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 22, 2015, 04:51:31 PM
If the "stop $17 tolls" issue in the most recent local elections means anything, I would have my doubts.
IIRC, everybody who used that as an election issue, lost. So I doubt it "means anything".
Quote from: oscar on November 22, 2015, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 22, 2015, 04:51:31 PM
If the "stop $17 tolls" issue in the most recent local elections means anything, I would have my doubts.
IIRC, everybody who used that as an election issue, lost. So I doubt it "means anything".
Either people didn't connect the two, or it just didn't matter too much to them.
Washington Post: HOT enough for you? Virginia has a new plan for interstate toll lanes. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/hot-enough-for-you-virginia-has-a-new-plan-for-interstate-toll-lanes/2015/11/19/8347d8de-8ef3-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html)
QuoteVirginia plans to expand its already extensive system of HOT lanes, creating a tolled network that is likely to dominate the local highway scene for most of the century.
QuoteThe latest program will push the high-occupancy toll lanes north along Interstate 395 to the D.C. line. Aubrey Layne, Virginia's transportation secretary, said in an interview that the state has reached an agreement on the plan with Transurban, the private partner that operates the 95 Express Lanes to the south and the 495 Express Lanes to the west of I-395.
QuoteOn Friday, Layne sent letters to the local governments in Alexandria, Fairfax and Arlington to notify them that the state had reached an agreement to move forward on what will amount to an eight-mile extension of the 95 Express Lanes.
QuoteAlthough each HOT lane system is a bit different from the others, drivers who are familiar with the 95 Express Lanes will have a similar experience: They will need to have a regular E-ZPass transponder to pay the toll or an E-ZPass Flex to claim the free ride for those meeting the HOV3 carpool standard.
Quote from: davewiecking on November 21, 2015, 02:00:57 PM
I'm curious how the northern part of the express roadway will be treated: the dual-carriageway non-reversible 4 lane portion that starts just south of the VA-27 interchange and continues into DC. This stretch includes the Eads Street interchange.
My guess is that will depend in large part on what the District of Columbia (specifically including DDOT) decides to do (or not to do).
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2015, 08:30:02 AM
Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep
the bridge operating as it does now.
The HOV bridge (especially northbound) would carry more traffic in the AM peak period if it were subject to management in the form of HOV/Toll lanes than it does now.
Would that provide relief to the non-HOV lanes? Probably not, though the operational problems associated with the lane drops and then the cloverleaf ramp from the southbound George Washington Memorial Parkway make matters much worse.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 22, 2015, 04:51:31 PM
If the "stop $17 tolls" issue in the most recent local elections means anything, I would have my doubts. The precedent has now already been set for taking away non-tolled lanes, with the now-approved 66 plan. Transurban will market towards bus commuters (less backup on your routes) and the "guaranteed arrival" angle to distant commuters. With the high income of the area, I think the preferences are coming through...people from distant suburbs are willing to pay pretty steep prices to ensure their SOV commute is predictable and as fast as possible.
Technical details, such as end-of-HOT bottlenecks, won't make or break this deal.
Like all the other HO/T projects, many people will argue against it, and it will still be implemented.
All Transurban has to do is get some relevant committee members in Richmond to be on board with it.
Gov. McAuliffe and his administration have said for public consumption that VDOT is likely to not let the private sector run the I-66 HOV/Toll lanes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2015, 04:08:45 PM
In the eyes of Transurban, of course it would. In the eyes of VDOT and everyone else, I doubt it. Consider the heat VDOT's under due to the afternoon schemozzle down at Exit 143 where the express lanes end. I-395 is horrid already and if they cause a bigger backup by removing the general access to the inner span at the 14th Street Bridge, I'd expect quite a backlash from the driving public. As it is I'm thankful my commute no longer takes me over the 14th Street Bridge. I drove that way from 2000 to 2008 and it was bad for my blood pressure.
It is not clear to me what may happen with the managed lanes south of Exit 143. You may recall that the Transurban lanes were supposed to run well south of Garrisonville (though not clear how far, I saw varied southern termini), but it was cut-back to where they end today as a direct result of the truncation of the section north of Turkeycock Run.
Is Transurban going to be required to extend their lanes south of Garrisonville as a result of this agreement?
We shouldn't be looking at this from a "how much traffic will it move". We *SHOULD* be looking at this from a how many PEOPLE will it move. That said, I haven't looked enough at this latest VDOT/Transurban proposal to see how the latter is affected by converting the rest of the HOV to HO/T. If the state can push Transurban to pony up for bus service, it might be worthwhile as user AlexandriaVA suggested earlier.
froggie's absolutely right about moving people. It's what a lot of people overlook when they say HOV lanes are underused because there aren't "enough" cars in them.
Quote from: froggie on November 23, 2015, 10:44:41 AM
We shouldn't be looking at this from a "how much traffic will it move". We *SHOULD* be looking at this from a how many PEOPLE will it move. That said, I haven't looked enough at this latest VDOT/Transurban proposal to see how the latter is affected by converting the rest of the HOV to HO/T. If the state can push Transurban to pony up for bus service, it might be worthwhile as user AlexandriaVA suggested earlier.
Adam, implicit in my statement is people, since the managed lanes are intended to do that, and will continue to do that by charging significant tolls of vehicles that do not comply with the HOV-3 requirement.
By providing free-flow conditions crossing the bridge northbound in the mornings, it gives a big boost to HOV-3 traffic and especially to long(er) haul commuter buses from origins in eastern Prince William County, Stafford County and areas around Fredericksburg.
I know personally one of the senior managers for this bus service, and the amount of time and fuel that the buses have to spend to get the (short) distance from South Joyce Street to lower 14th Street, S.W. is impressive (in a bad way).
However, I
summarily reject arguments that just because some SOV and HOV-2 traffic might benefit from this change, that it should not be implemented.
I literally just received the following from WTOP:
QuoteThe 95 Express Lanes will extend 2 miles south into Stafford County to reduce bottlenecks, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announces on WTOP's Ask the Governor program.
That's all I know since I'm not listening to it at work.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 24, 2015, 10:20:06 AM
I literally just received the following from WTOP:
QuoteThe 95 Express Lanes will extend 2 miles south into Stafford County to reduce bottlenecks, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announces on WTOP's Ask the Governor program.
That's all I know since I'm not listening to it at work.
Per this blog: http://liveblogwp.wtop.com/Event/Ask_the_Governor_Terry_McAuliffe_Nov_24
QuoteGovernor announces that the state with help from Transurban will extend the 95 Express Lanes 2 miles south, deeper into Stafford County to reduce the southbound bottleneck that ocurres when the lanes end at Garrisonville Road.
There's other road related questions/comments on the blog for your amusement as well.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 24, 2015, 10:20:06 AM
I literally just received the following from WTOP:
QuoteThe 95 Express Lanes will extend 2 miles south into Stafford County to reduce bottlenecks, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announces on WTOP's Ask the Governor program.
That's all I know since I'm not listening to it at work.
Two miles? IMO, not enough.
Ten or
twenty miles would be more like it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 24, 2015, 12:44:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 24, 2015, 10:20:06 AM
I literally just received the following from WTOP:
QuoteThe 95 Express Lanes will extend 2 miles south into Stafford County to reduce bottlenecks, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announces on WTOP's Ask the Governor program.
That's all I know since I'm not listening to it at work.
Two miles? IMO, not enough. Ten or twenty miles would be more like it.
Is the delay due to all the volume there, or is it due to the ridiculous "Hey, we've allowed you to speed along at 65 mph. Now, merge down to 1 lane, slow down to 35 mph to navigate a sharp S curve, then try to weave into traffic while others are trying to exit".
A few weeks back on a trip down to Florida, I was in the vicinity of where the HOT lanes end at about 10pm. I was watching the lone vehicle in the HOT lanes within eyesight well ahead of me. By the time he exited the HOT lanes into the general purpose lanes, we were right next to each other. He lost a significant amount of time due to that S curve at the end, and there was no traffic to slow him down...just the design of the merge. I could only imagine how bad it is when the highway is much busier!
VDOT's website has some details on this along with the HOT lane conversion of I-395 to DC http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2015/gov._mcauliffe_announces_major88511.asp (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2015/gov._mcauliffe_announces_major88511.asp)
The 95 express lanes will now continue to 1500 feet past the Exit 143 on-ramp to I-95 south...this will be a return to the setup the lanes had when they ended in Dumfries with the express lanes merging into the left lane shortly after an interchange. They will also have 95 NB be able to access the lanes at this location before reaching Exit 143.
Construction starts in 2016, open in 2018 (this seems like a long time...the median is already cleared for more than half of this). This will improve both directions on 95 a little bit IMO but SB will not be good until they fix the US 17 to VA 3 stretch, which regularly backs up to the Stafford Airport these days. NB there will still be a weave but a few less cars from 95 as they would already be in the express lanes.
This would tie in nicely to VDOT's desire to add a 4th general lane from Garrisonville to Stafford Airport. They may also be thinking about the upcoming project of some scale to rebuild the Stafford interchange (Exit 140, SR 630) which could be why the lanes don't get extended past Stafford (which is what I would do if I couldn't get them to Fredericksburg).
The curve on the ramp at the end of 95's HOT lanes can be driven at 45 mph and is not the primary source of the backup. It is first the weave at Exit 143 and second is the express lanes merging from 2 lanes to 1 before reaching the S curve.
The I-395 conversion is supposed to begin in 2017 and open in 2019. There will be dedicated funding for new and enhanced transit services and carpooling incentives.
Mike
Fixed link to link to correct page.
-Mark
I will definitely take the Dumfries set-up past SR 610 over the current set-up. I am slightly concerned that it looks like the entire extension is only planned to be one lane. I do not see how enough traffic would still exit at the SR 610 ramp to make one lane reasonable the whole way.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 24, 2015, 05:46:52 PM
I will definitely take the Dumfries set-up past SR 610 over the current set-up. I am slightly concerned that it looks like the entire extension is only planned to be one lane. I do not see how enough traffic would still exit at the SR 610 ramp to make one lane reasonable the whole way.
I agree.
But I would
much prefer that the managed lanes continue much further south, especially when they are running in the southbound direction.
I think Transurban is going to make a heap of money over having control over the entire corridor from the Pentagon south, and can probably afford to extend them south to U.S. 17 (at least).
I guess, if it's only 1,500 feet long, 1 lane isn't horrible, but it would be better to maintain two lanes down to the merge point. I would think there's enough room to squeeze two lanes in next to the upslope of the overpass there.
My thinking is that at least in the interim, it makes sense to have only one lane extended.
Southbound, 2 lanes HOT and 3 general lanes. One of the HOT lanes will exit and merge into I-95 on the right prior to Garrisonville Rd. For those who want to exit at Garrisonville, take this ramp. The other HOT lane will continue south and merge in to I-95 from the left. It is much easier to merge one lane in than two. So since all of the HOT traffic that does not take the flyover will have to merge into the left general lane, it's better that only one lane does it, instead of two.
Of course, if the extension were really long (like 10 miles), then of course extend two lanes instead of one.
There is definitely room for 2 lanes at the flyover location. If they insist on only one lane for the extension then the current lane drop should be eliminated and the right lane just be exit only onto the flyover.
Even doing that the single lane back to the mainline 1500 ft past the Exit 143 on-ramp to 95 south will be 2.2 miles long!
Mike
Quote from: mrsman on November 25, 2015, 01:38:44 PM
My thinking is that at least in the interim, it makes sense to have only one lane extended.
Southbound, 2 lanes HOT and 3 general lanes. One of the HOT lanes will exit and merge into I-95 on the right prior to Garrisonville Rd. For those who want to exit at Garrisonville, take this ramp. The other HOT lane will continue south and merge in to I-95 from the left. It is much easier to merge one lane in than two. So since all of the HOT traffic that does not take the flyover will have to merge into the left general lane, it's better that only one lane does it, instead of two.
Of course, if the extension were really long (like 10 miles), then of course extend two lanes instead of one.
The downside is when you get a slow driver pacing the pack. Once the vehicles behind the slowpoke hit that gore area (not even the merge area), they are gonna swoop out and cut into the general purpose lanes immediately.
The NJ Turnpike's new widening at Interchange 6 features 2 lanes entering the NB Turnpike on both the car and truck lanes, immediately merging in. Doesn't seem to be any issues with this.
Either way, it ought to be built to allow it to accommodate two lanes in the future if they do extend the managed lanes further south.
VRE commuter rail now ends at US-17 with the opening of the Spotsylvania Station.. Perhaps that should be deemed the symbolic (if not statutory, somehow) end of Northern VA, thus that would be where the HOT lanes end as well.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 25, 2015, 04:46:51 PM
VRE commuter rail now ends at US-17 with the opening of the Spotsylvania Station.. Perhaps that should be deemed the symbolic (if not statutory, somehow) end of Northern VA, thus that would be where the HOT lanes end as well.
There's a thriving slug line on Route 3.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2015, 05:36:17 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 25, 2015, 04:46:51 PM
VRE commuter rail now ends at US-17 with the opening of the Spotsylvania Station.. Perhaps that should be deemed the symbolic (if not statutory, somehow) end of Northern VA, thus that would be where the HOT lanes end as well.
There's a thriving slug line on Route 3.
I was referring to what I guess is bypass US-17, not the Business 17 that goes through town:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/US-17,+Fredericksburg,+VA+22408/@38.2213666,-77.4416296,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b6c474038df421:0x497a82dc292135a8
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 25, 2015, 06:06:54 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2015, 05:36:17 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 25, 2015, 04:46:51 PM
VRE commuter rail now ends at US-17 with the opening of the Spotsylvania Station.. Perhaps that should be deemed the symbolic (if not statutory, somehow) end of Northern VA, thus that would be where the HOT lanes end as well.
There's a thriving slug line on Route 3.
I was referring to what I guess is bypass US-17, not the Business 17 that goes through town:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/US-17,+Fredericksburg,+VA+22408/@38.2213666,-77.4416296,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b6c474038df421:0x497a82dc292135a8
What goes through Fredericksburg is Business U.S. 17.
U.S. 17 follows I-95 between Exit 126 and Exit 133. It runes roughly E-W from a point south of town (where Tidewater Trail heads north into Fredericksburg as Va. 2 and U.S. 17 Business) to U.S. 1, then a short distance with 1 before it enters/exits I-95 at Exit 133.
I was referring to the slug line off Route 3 at Gordon Road or Boulevard (I forget which and can't be bothered to check a map since I still have stuff in the oven for tomorrow). That's a good distance west of I-95. I guess I was thinking in terms of the idea that if there's a slug line there, I'd think of that as symbolically part of Northern Virginia. I understand that slug line is doing much better since the notorious "B.O. Lady" retired.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2015, 09:58:56 PM
I was referring to the slug line off Route 3 at Gordon Road or Boulevard (I forget which and can't be bothered to check a map since I still have stuff in the oven for tomorrow). That's a good distance west of I-95. I guess I was thinking in terms of the idea that if there's a slug line there, I'd think of that as symbolically part of Northern Virginia. I understand that slug line is doing much better since the notorious "B.O. Lady" retired.
That sounds like Va. 123 (which
is Gordon Boulevard in Prince William County) just south of the Occoquan River.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2015, 11:02:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2015, 09:58:56 PM
I was referring to the slug line off Route 3 at Gordon Road or Boulevard (I forget which and can't be bothered to check a map since I still have stuff in the oven for tomorrow). That's a good distance west of I-95. I guess I was thinking in terms of the idea that if there's a slug line there, I'd think of that as symbolically part of Northern Virginia. I understand that slug line is doing much better since the notorious "B.O. Lady" retired.
That sounds like Va. 123 (which is Gordon Boulevard in Prince William County) just south of the Occoquan River.
I just pulled up a map. It's Gordon Road and it's off Route 3 to the west (very obvious commuter lot when you drive past).
Saw something rather odd this afternoon. I was driving from the Total Beverage in Springfield to the Wegmans on Telegraph Road and I took Backlick to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway.
The I-95 HO/T lanes are northbound all day today and the toll listed on both the sign on Backlick and the sign on the Parkway was as follows (no arrows on the sign, of course; I did that just for legibility here):
I-495----->$2.40
395-236----->$2.30 (i.e., the Turkeycock ramp complex)
Very odd to see the longer distance bearing the cheaper toll! I suppose in terms of "active traffic management" it might make sense if the Beltway were congested (I don't know if it was; southbound I-95 was NOT) and they didn't want a tailback up the big loop ramp potentially slowing the express lanes.
I have seen those destinations as the same toll many times coming up the HOT lanes in the morning but never with the 495 exit more expensive.
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 29, 2015, 02:51:50 PM
I have seen those destinations as the same toll many times coming up the HOT lanes in the morning but never with the 495 exit more expensive.
I've seen the same rate many times too. Usually in the mornings when we drive to the Springfield Metro the rate to Turkeycock is reasonably higher. This is the first time I recall seeing a higher rate for a shorter trip. I haven't downloaded dashcam video yet, but I doubt it'd matter since the camera doesn't usually pick up electronic signs very well.
Washington Post: 95 Express Lanes mark first anniversary (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/12/29/95-express-lanes-mark-first-anniversary/)
QuoteTolling began one year ago Tuesday on 95 Express Lanes, yet their full impact on the D.C. region's transportation system isn't apparent yet.
QuoteSo far, the high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes are performing pretty much as billed. They provide a quicker and more reliable trip for toll payers and for carpoolers than do the regular lanes along 29 miles of Interstate 95 between the far southern suburbs of Stafford County and the spot just inside the Capital Beltway where they link with the I-395 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes for the remaining eight miles to the D.C. line.
QuoteThe vehicles most likely to be found in what are often derided as "Lexus Lanes" are Toyotas, Hondas and Fords. According to a study for Transurban, the company that operates the express lanes on I-95 as well as on the Capital Beltway, Lexus drivers account for 3 percent of the traffic.
Some of the comments are worth a read, even though many are very negative about this project.
Coming home yesterday morning, the price to drive the entire the southern "segment" going north seemed a bit high, over $4 or so. The regular lanes were cruising along without any problems. Maybe it was all those the out-of-state cars exiting onto the lanes?
Going south last week I snicked over to the HOT lanes to avoid a potentially annoying backup at the Exit 160 lane drop (it was raining and traffic was heavy). The cost to drive from US-1 (exit 161) to Dale Blvd. (exit 156) was much too tempting ($1 for all exits).
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2016, 04:49:54 PM
Coming home yesterday morning, the price to drive the entire the southern "segment" going north seemed a bit high, over $4 or so. The regular lanes were cruising along without any problems. Maybe it was all those the out-of-state cars exiting onto the lanes?
Going south last week I snicked over to the HOT lanes to avoid a potentially annoying backup at the Exit 160 lane drop (it was raining and traffic was heavy). The cost to drive from US-1 (exit 161) to Dale Blvd. (exit 156) was much too tempting ($1 for all exits).
The operational problems seem to be much less when the lanes run in the northbound direction.
Things are much more prone to problems southbound at the southern terminus near Garrisonville.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2016, 04:49:54 PM
Coming home yesterday morning, the price to drive the entire the southern "segment" going north seemed a bit high, over $4 or so. The regular lanes were cruising along without any problems. Maybe it was all those the out-of-state cars exiting onto the lanes?
Going south last week I snicked over to the HOT lanes to avoid a potentially annoying backup at the Exit 160 lane drop (it was raining and traffic was heavy). The cost to drive from US-1 (exit 161) to Dale Blvd. (exit 156) was much too tempting ($1 for all exits).
$4.20 NB for the southern segment (which is longer NB than the SB southern segment) is also what it costs at 5 a.m. on a weekday. Not sure I've ever seen it a lot lower than this...
Mike
Is there any benefit to taking the 95/395 express lanes when the general lanes are moving without delays?
I know that in the case of the 495 lanes there is still a slight benefit because there are exits to Lee Hwy and in Tysons Corner on the express lanes that don't exist on the general lanes, so there would be less travel on surface streets for some people.
I don't see why one would pay $4.20 for the 95 express lanes if it won't cause you to get to your destination any sooner.
Some people don't care about money. Or their employer pays for the EZ Pass.
I guess it's like buying gas. Some people just pull up to the pump, not even looking at the price. They could've saved 20 cents a gallon just by stopping at a gas station a few blocks away many times.
Quote from: mrsman on January 05, 2016, 08:30:37 AM
Is there any benefit to taking the 95/395 express lanes when the general lanes are moving without delays?
I know that in the case of the 495 lanes there is still a slight benefit because there are exits to Lee Hwy and in Tysons Corner on the express lanes that don't exist on the general lanes, so there would be less travel on surface streets for some people.
I don't see why one would pay $4.20 for the 95 express lanes if it won't cause you to get to your destination any sooner.
At 5 a.m. it is faster in the express lanes on 95 because there is a delay in Woodbridge/Dale City by the time I get there. I usually enter the lanes at one of the entrances either side of VA 234 where the price is <$3 most days.
Absent of knowing this, it depends on how observant one is about speed limits - 65 mph for all 29 miles of the 95/395 express lanes whereas the mainline drops to 60 about 11 miles up then down to 55 about 6 miles later. Or how confident one is that a delay won't develop further north by the time you get there. Or if one is less stressed about the light traffic that would be in the express lanes versus the mainline.
Mike
I use the I-95 lanes for access to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway ramps, as those have no mainline equivalents.
The point on the speed limit has an additional nuance in that if you're pulled over for speeding, the fine in the HO/T lanes would be lower due to the higher speed limit. That is, 73 is 8 over in there instead of 18 over in the 55-mph zone, so it's a lower fine and fewer points on your license. (Also, if you're going 75, that's grounds for a reckless in a 55 zone.)
WTOP Radio: HOT lanes' impact nationwide could be sign of things for D.C. area (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/01/hot-lanes-impact-sign-things-d-c-area/)
WTOP Radio: Bill could lead to I-95 improvements for some regular backups (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/02/bill-lead-95-improvements-regular-backups/)
QuoteWith plans already in the works to extend the Interstate 95 Express Lanes about two miles south to ease regular congestion through Stafford, a bill in the House of Delegates would direct the Virginia Department of Transportation to consider a further extension, or other improvements, for commuters even farther south.
QuoteThe bill, sponsored by Del. Mark Cole, would direct VDOT to work with regional planning groups to study improvements south of the Express Lanes toward Fredericksburg.
Quote"I think it's important to the region. There hasn't been any real comprehensive study done on 95 in decades, and this is something that needs to be done," says Cole, R-Fredericksburg.
QuoteOriginally, the bill specifically directed VDOT to negotiate the extension of the HOV or toll lanes south to Route 17. However, the latest version of the bill that instead focuses on a study of options now has VDOT's approval.
Quote"The point is to get VDOT to make I-95, especially the southern portion from North Stafford to Spotsylvania, a priority," Cole tells WTOP.
95hoo - random but related question:
Why is there no direct access from the franconia-springfield parkway to the general lanes of 95? I work in that general area, and I see many people who I assume are coming from points west (say, Burke) to the general (non-HOT) lanes north to DC/Arlington. Due to the lack of direct connection, they are forced to go up Backlick and pick up 395 at the VA-644 (Keene Mill/Franconia Rds) interchange near the porn shop.
I only fixed a typo because it confused me what you were going for briefly by putting "3/95".
-Mark
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on February 07, 2016, 01:44:06 PM
95hoo - random but related question:
Why is there no direct access from the franconia-springfield parkway to the general lanes of 95? I work in that general area, and I see many people who I assume are coming from points west (say, Burke) to the general (non-HOT) lanes north to DC/Arlington. Due to the lack of direct connection, they are forced to go up Backlick and pick up 395 at the VA-644 (Keene Mill/Franconia Rds) interchange near the porn shop.
There are a couple planned movements (VA 289 EB to I-95 NB and I-95 SB to VA 289 WB) to be constructed according to the Fairfax (http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fcdot/pdf/cdot/cdot_all.pdf) County (http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fcdot/pdf/cdot/unfundedprojects.pdf) website but they are currently unfunded.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on February 07, 2016, 01:44:06 PM
95hoo - random but related question:
Why is there no direct access from the franconia-springfield parkway to the general lanes of 95? I work in that general area, and I see many people who I assume are coming from points west (say, Burke) to the general (non-HOT) lanes north to DC/Arlington. Due to the lack of direct connection, they are forced to go up Backlick and pick up 395 at the VA-644 (Keene Mill/Franconia Rds) interchange near the porn shop.
I only fixed a typo because it confused me what you were going for briefly by putting "3/95".
-Mark
From what I understand, based both on what I've read and what I was told by a former member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, there are two issues that are related to each other:
(1) Proximity to the pre-existing Route 644 interchange means C/D roads would be required.
(2) C/D roads would be far too expensive there and would likely require the taking of numerous commercial properties on the western side of the highway.
Obviously, the "best" time to do it–maybe the "least worst time" might be the better wording–would have been when the area was already torn up to rebuild the Springfield Interchange. I believe the additional funding did not exist and both VDOT and Fairfax County were unsure they wanted a full interchange there. Apparently there was some sentiment that because there was eventually to be a full interchange between the Fairfax County Parkway and I-95 in Newington (which now exists since they finished the Parkway through the old Fort Belvoir Proving Grounds), they didn't need one for the F—S Parkway because people could just use the other. Problem is, doing that can add substantial travel time because the Newington part of the Parkway gets quite congested due to the traffic lights.
QuoteI believe the additional funding did not exist and both VDOT and Fairfax County were unsure they wanted a full interchange there.
No it wasn't. As it was, they had already deferred one phase of the interchange at the time (the direct HOV ramps).
Will the I-95 HOT lanes ever be extended to their original terminus in Spotsylvania? The project extending them past Garrisionville Rd is nice but not enough. It appears an extension to Spotsylvania was in the original plan but that would be the second phase of a 2 phase project. Is that still legit? Also would Vdot be allowed to extend in a PP3 deal with another company if Transburban does not want to.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
Obviously, the "best" time to do it–maybe the "least worst time" might be the better wording–would have been when the area was already torn up to rebuild the Springfield Interchange. I believe the additional funding did not exist and both VDOT and Fairfax County were unsure they wanted a full interchange there. Apparently there was some sentiment that because there was eventually to be a full interchange between the Fairfax County Parkway and I-95 in Newington (which now exists since they finished the Parkway through the old Fort Belvoir Proving Grounds), they didn't need one for the F—S Parkway because people could just use the other. Problem is, doing that can add substantial travel time because the Newington part of the Parkway gets quite congested due to the traffic lights.
A few thoughts.
(1) For those scoring at home, remember that the interchange between Va. 289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkay, former 7900) and the
managed lanes on I-95 was there for some years before the reconstruction of the Springfield Interchange got started.
(2) A full interchange was contemplated by Fairfax County plans between I-95 and Va. 289, going back to when Va. 289 and Va. 286 were being planned, in other words back to the 1980's. A colleague of mine was at a public meeting many years ago (early 1990's), and the one thing that there was unanimity among the persons in attendance was a full interchange for all movements between 95 and 289 (this was also years before the "missing" section of Va. 286 (Fairfax County Parkway, former 7100) was completed across the Fort Belvoir North Area (former Engineer Proving Grounds)).
(3) It was deferred, more than once, because of associated construction costs, and I am not aware of if getting built in the near future, if ever. With Va. 286 complete now, that does form a reasonably good (but somewhat circuitous) high-speed route across the Fort Belvoir North Area that provides access between I-95 and Va. 289.
I'm going to ask a question that betrays my ignorance of the I-95 Express Toll Lanes south of DC, since I rarely go that way:
Will any further extensions of the lanes south beyond Fredericksburg ever be constructed using a quadruple carriageway arrangement? I am very familiar with the I-95 ETLs constructed by the MdTA north of Baltimore and I believe that a quad-carriageway arrangement works far better for this segment of I-95 than a reversible carrriageway would, and is far simpler to build if the right-of-way is available. I am surprised that VDOT and Transurban are pushing the reversible carriageway concept so hard and I will be interested to see if a diminishing return will be seen as the carriageway gets longer and the time needed to change directions takes longer.
I wonder if all of I-95 between Fredericksburg and I-295 north of Richmond will eventually have three or more carriageways...
Quote from: TheOneKEA on February 28, 2016, 05:46:06 PM
I'm going to ask a question that betrays my ignorance of the I-95 Express Toll Lanes south of DC, since I rarely go that way:
Will any further extensions of the lanes south beyond Fredericksburg ever be constructed using a quadruple carriageway arrangement? I am very familiar with the I-95 ETLs constructed by the MdTA north of Baltimore and I believe that a quad-carriageway arrangement works far better for this segment of I-95 than a reversible carrriageway would, and is far simpler to build if the right-of-way is available. I am surprised that VDOT and Transurban are pushing the reversible carriageway concept so hard and I will be interested to see if a diminishing return will be seen as the carriageway gets longer and the time needed to change directions takes longer.
I wonder if all of I-95 between Fredericksburg and I-295 north of Richmond will eventually have three or more carriageways...
Doubt it, mostly because there is no room for such a configuration from around Dale City to Springfield (and even less room through the Springfield Interchange, and north of Springfield on I-395). Remember that the original idea behind the managed lanes in the corridor was to get buses (and later car-pools and van-pools) from Springfield to employment centers in Arlington County and the District of Columbia - north in the mornings, south in the afternoons.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on February 28, 2016, 05:46:06 PM
I'm going to ask a question that betrays my ignorance of the I-95 Express Toll Lanes south of DC, since I rarely go that way:
Will any further extensions of the lanes south beyond Fredericksburg ever be constructed using a quadruple carriageway arrangement? I am very familiar with the I-95 ETLs constructed by the MdTA north of Baltimore and I believe that a quad-carriageway arrangement works far better for this segment of I-95 than a reversible carrriageway would, and is far simpler to build if the right-of-way is available. I am surprised that VDOT and Transurban are pushing the reversible carriageway concept so hard and I will be interested to see if a diminishing return will be seen as the carriageway gets longer and the time needed to change directions takes longer.
I wonder if all of I-95 between Fredericksburg and I-295 north of Richmond will eventually have three or more carriageways...
There were existing reversible lanes. Plus they take up less ROW, especially if rush hour traffic is heavily biased in one direction.
Quote from: vdeane on February 28, 2016, 08:16:36 PM
There were existing reversible lanes. Plus they take up less ROW, especially if rush hour traffic is heavily biased in one direction.
That has traditionally been the case in this corridor - heavy northbound in A.M., southbound in P.M., so I agree with you.
But on weekends, it
would be nice to have managed lanes in both directions. At least on the I-95 part of the corridor.
I thought TheOneKEA was asking about further extensions being two-way instead of reversible, rather than about converting any existing portion to a quad-carriageway. I've had the same thought at times that as you extend it further and further south, it seems logical that at some point the reversal process would become more of a burden to the point where it'd negatively impact the lanes' usefulness. Of course, I have no idea where that point is.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 28, 2016, 09:59:00 PM
I thought TheOneKEA was asking about further extensions being two-way instead of reversible, rather than about converting any existing portion to a quad-carriageway. I've had the same thought at times that as you extend it further and further south, it seems logical that at some point the reversal process would become more of a burden to the point where it'd negatively impact the lanes' usefulness. Of course, I have no idea where that point is.
Yes, this is what I'm asking about. I know it's completely impossible to add any new carriage ways northeast of Occoquan and that it will be hideously expensive south of there. I am asking about the areas that haven't been expanded yet.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on February 28, 2016, 10:30:08 PM
Yes, this is what I'm asking about. I know it's completely impossible to add any new carriage ways northeast of Occoquan and that it will be hideously expensive south of there. I am asking about the areas that haven't been expanded yet.
There were plans to run the managed lanes as far south as Massaponax, but that got killed as part of the Arlington County lawsuit against VDOT and FHWA. As far as I know, it has not been revived.
No plans to my knowledge of having a dual set of HOT/HOV lanes. Furthermore, it would be an operational problem where the dual set reverted to the existing reversible set, especially in the northbound direction when the reversible lanes are running southbound.
Needed? Yes. Feasible? No.....only way to squeeze them in would involve taking away existing regular lanes north of Dale City...ESPECIALLY in the constricted areas near Occoquan (VA 123) and north of Newington (VA 286).
Seems like an unnecessary complication from an operational standpoint. It'd be a different issue if it were a new facility altogether, but everyone understands and is used to the idea of reversibility.
Plus how much reverse-peak capacity do you need? The occasional slowdown on the weekend going out to the beach or Potomac Mills doesn't warrant it.
At this point, if dual carriageways were built, those in the non-peak direction could only make use of them for a short distance before they're forced off of them again (which would then become a congestion chokepoint in itself)...if they even allow traffic on them at all.
The only way a dual carriageway would be useful is that it wouldn't need to be checked for any remaining traffic prior to the reverse direction being opened. If we're talking to Massaponax, it's only another 20 miles or so, thus not a huge time killer to check a single carriageway. And it's a huge expense to built an extra set of lanes that will be open less than 50% of the time.
With regard to the OP question, there isn't any room in I-95's median for even a reversible lane from I-295 north to VA 54 Ashland (8 miles) and there is some development along 95 to make this an expensive proposition to expand the ROW outward.
Dual carriageways would make no logistical sense anywhere along 95 unless it was for commuting to Richmond from the north, which I think drops off pretty significantly north of Ashland. There are not that many housing developments north of Ashland near I-95 (unlike in Stafford and northern Spotsy which are still springing up and these folks commute northward). But the dual lanes would need to drop to the single reversible lane at wherever the transition from Richmond commuter to DC commuter area is (Ladysmith or Thornburg?).
Squeezing a dual carriageway in locations north of this where it happens to be possible now would just cause all kind of problems...would need to be the whole distance which everyone knows is a non-starter in terms of $.
A 4th general lane south to Richmond from wherever the HOT lanes ultimately end would be a cheaper choice and be enough to mitigate most traffic issues on 95 in that area.
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 29, 2016, 10:43:28 AM
A 4th general lane south to Richmond from wherever the HOT lanes ultimately end would be a cheaper choice and be enough to mitigate most traffic issues on 95 in that area.
Ideally, I-95 ought to be four general-purpose lanes from I-295 near Glen Allen in Henrico County
all the way to Springfield in Fairfax County.
I'm not convinced yet that there's a need between Ashland and the south side of Fredericksburg. This section just doesn't see the volumes or the demand. 6-lane freeways can adequately handle demand WELL into the 100K's, and 95 is below 100K from Carmel Church to Exit 126. North of Route 3 in particular is where volumes pick up significantly.
Quote from: froggie on March 07, 2016, 08:43:30 AM
I'm not convinced yet that there's a need between Ashland and the south side of Fredericksburg. This section just doesn't see the volumes or the demand. 6-lane freeways can adequately handle demand WELL into the 100K's, and 95 is below 100K from Carmel Church to Exit 126. North of Route 3 in particular is where volumes pick up significantly.
Ever driven it on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday or holiday?
Yep. And the vast bulk of the problem on those days is north of Fredericksburg, not south.
Quote from: froggie on March 07, 2016, 04:17:00 PM
Yep. And the vast bulk of the problem on those days is north of Fredericksburg, not south.
I do not go that way, on those days, preferring to use U.S. 301 since in-car applications became widely available, but I have many bad memories of getting mired in severe congestion on much of I-95 in Virginia.
Applications like Inrix and TomTom generally show solid yellow or red between I-295 and locations to the north. Some days, the section between Va. 207 and I-295 is terrible, probably because some drivers are afraid of U.S. 301 and its mostly two lane undivided section from Bowling Green to Richmond. Other days, I have seen it stop-and-go from 295 all the way to the express lane entrance (when those lanes are running northbound).
Quote from: froggie on March 07, 2016, 04:17:00 PM
Yep. And the vast bulk of the problem on those days is north of Fredericksburg, not south.
I think I agree with this. I've had miserable drives from the Beltway down to Aquia, but I think that's the extent of the hell that is I-95.
Fredericksburg.com: Fredericksburg localities don't want to miss out on express lanes cash -
ONCE EXPRESS LANES CONNECT WITH I-395, LOCAL OFFICIALS WANT THEIR FAIR SHARE OF PIE (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/fredericksburg-localities-don-t-want-to-miss-out-on-express/article_27cd037a-1ae7-5869-a9cb-6941b5f996c4.html)
QuoteThe extension of the express lanes to Interstate 395 will not only close a gap in the electronically tolled system, it will send millions in revenue to jurisdictions along the corridor.
QuoteBut some local transportation officials are crying foul over the planning process and how the revenue will be used.
QuoteThe express lanes extension agreement between the state and Transurban calls for an annual payment by Transurban for transit services and multimodal strategies identified in a study led by Virginia's Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
QuoteThe Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission were chosen to represent regional jurisdictions as part of the study. Stafford, Spotsylvania and Fredericksburg are members of the PRTC but not NVTC.
QuoteThe cities of Alexandria and Arlington and the counties of Fairfax, Prince William and Stafford are also included as members of the study.
QuoteAt Monday's monthly meeting, Policy Committee members of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization voiced concerns over the program.
In Dr. Gridlock's online chat today, Virginia's secretary of transportation said legislation effective later this year will require HO/T lane operators to query the E-ZPass database before sending out an invoice. I don't have any further info than that, but I'm sure it won't be quite that simple, especially as to out-of-staters.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2016, 02:58:17 PM
In Dr. Gridlock's online chat today, Virginia's secretary of transportation said legislation effective later this year will require HO/T lane operators to query the E-ZPass database before sending out an invoice. I don't have any further info than that, but I'm sure it won't be quite that simple, especially as to out-of-staters.
As I understand it there is a file that is updated regularly that has all license plate numbers associated with the corresponding E-ZPass transponders, and the serial number of the transponder.
Not that difficult for any toll operator, including Transurban, to query the database and if the plate number is in that file, to charge the associated account. Seems like they should have been checking against that file from when they opened for business.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 29, 2016, 01:32:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2016, 02:58:17 PM
In Dr. Gridlock's online chat today, Virginia's secretary of transportation said legislation effective later this year will require HO/T lane operators to query the E-ZPass database before sending out an invoice. I don't have any further info than that, but I'm sure it won't be quite that simple, especially as to out-of-staters.
As I understand it there is a file that is updated regularly that has all license plate numbers associated with the corresponding E-ZPass transponders, and the serial number of the transponder.
Not that difficult for any toll operator, including Transurban, to query the database and if the plate number is in that file, to charge the associated account. Seems like they should have been checking against that file from when they opened for business.
I can't imagine it being any more difficult than having to go to various state's DMVs to get the addresses of the car's registered owners.
I don't recall anyone stating they have had issues recently with EZ Pass in any other state, regardless of where their EZ Pass is from, if they missed a toll. The problem seems to be unique to Transurban, who apparently is much more interested in collecting fines to help pay off their roads.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2016, 06:40:09 AM
I don't recall anyone stating they have had issues recently with EZ Pass in any other state, regardless of where their EZ Pass is from, if they missed a toll. The problem seems to be unique to Transurban, who apparently is much more interested in collecting fines to help pay off their roads.
I think that is correct, though the (Transurban) just today settled a court case (heard about it on WTOP Radio) that is supposed to decrease the effort to fine people and increase other, and non-punitive ways to collect tolls that are due.
WTOP Radio: Express lanes operator agrees to settlement with Va. drivers (http://wtop.com/virginia/2016/03/settlement-brings-relief-va-express-lane-users/)
QuoteTransurban, the company that operates express lanes in Northern Virginia, has settled a class-action lawsuit with drivers who were charged massive fines after missing toll payments.
QuoteUnder the terms of the settlement, Transurban will give drivers 10 days, instead of the current five days, to pay missed tolls before penalties are tacked on.
QuoteSome customers who shelled out hundreds or thousands of dollars will be eligible for refunds, and Transurban will roll out new initiatives to get customers signed up for missed toll email alerts.
Quote"We're quite proud of the fact that we were able to convince Transurban to change," said Kevin Stanfield, one of the plaintiffs and a producer with WTOP sister station Federal News Radio.
QuoteStanfield owed just $29 in missed tolls due to a credit card mix-up, but Transurban ended up charging him more than $2,000 in penalties and fees.
Quote"They were making it seem like we were purposely trying to circumvent the process and travel without paying, which wasn't the case," he said.
QuoteThe settlement still must be reviewed and approved by a judge.
Washington Post: HOT lanes operator reaches deal in tolling lawsuit that alleged predatory practices (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/03/28/hot-lanes-operator-reaches-deal-in-tolling-lawsuit-that-alleged-predatory-practices/)
QuoteA tentative settlement was reached Monday in a federal lawsuit that alleged the operators of Northern Virginia's high-occupancy toll lanes routinely failed to notify drivers in a timely manner that they had missed tolls and were accumulating huge fees and fines – sometimes amounting to thousands of dollars.
QuoteThe agreement in the class-action lawsuit filed last April in federal court in Alexandria proposes to increase protections for motorists and give them more time to clear missed tolls from their accounts before they are sent to collection; some customers also will be eligible for refunds. Transurban, the company that manages the lanes, and several law firms representing the plaintiffs filed the proposed settlement with the court on Monday, but it must be reviewed by a judge.
QuoteElectronic tolling systems such as those used in the Virginia HOT lanes are becoming more common in the D.C. region and across the nation. The tolls are collected by an electronic interaction between a driver's E-ZPass transponder and monitoring equipment mounted in gantries along the highways. The electronic transaction may fail for several reasons. For example, the transponder may be incorrectly mounted, or there may not be enough money loaded on the user's E-ZPass account to cover the toll. Meanwhile, video equipment in the gantry has recorded an image of the vehicle's license plate, creating a bill for the registered owner of the vehicle.
Washington Post op-ed: The fallacy of Virginia's love affair with privatized public services (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/wp/2016/03/30/the-fallacy-of-virginias-love-affair-with-privatized-public-services/)
QuoteIt may seem like good news that Transurban, the Australian firm that runs the high-occupancy toll lanes in Northern Virginia, is settling with motorists who were treated poorly regarding missed tolls.
QuoteBut it once again shows the fallacy of Virginia's love affair with privatized public services.
QuoteThe problem with the HOT lanes was that motorists often had no idea that their E-ZPass transponders were not registering as they drove through electronic toll counters. According to lawsuits, the E-ZPasses might have been placed improperly in the cars or there wasn't enough money in the account.
QuoteOne woman was initially assessed $4.15 for missing five tolls on the Capital Beltway. Transurban didn't get around to sending her a notice for 60 days. There was no other way she could have known. She tried to settle the matter by paying the tolls and $100 extra, but it didn't work. She ended up being billed $3,413.75 by Transurban in tolls and fines.
This is why privatization and public private partnerships should be illegal.
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2016, 07:51:42 PM
This is why privatization and public private partnerships should be illegal.
Quote from: Ronald Reagan
government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
What do you expect when that is the driving principle for a significant segment of the populace?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 31, 2016, 03:03:41 PM
Washington Post op-ed: The fallacy of Virginia's love affair with privatized public services (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/wp/2016/03/30/the-fallacy-of-virginias-love-affair-with-privatized-public-services/)
....
QuoteThe problem with the HOT lanes was that motorists often had no idea that their E-ZPass transponders were not registering as they drove through electronic toll counters. According to lawsuits, the E-ZPasses might have been placed improperly in the cars or there wasn't enough money in the account.
....
I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people who fail to, or refuse to, mount the transponders correctly. The instructions are extremely clear, yet there are still people who insist on trying to hold the device in their hands or lay it on the dashboard. I feel like it's their own fault if their devices aren't read properly.
Virginia wants to extend 95 Express lanes to Fredericksburg:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/03/31/virginia-officials-want-to-extend-95-express-lanes-to-fredericksburg/
QuoteVirginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne on Thursday said the state hopes to extend the high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on I-95 about 10 miles south to Fredericksburg.
The proposal was one of several rail and road programs in the I-95 corridor that the state has clustered into a package called the "Atlantic Gateway," and Virginia is about to apply for federal grants to support the effort.
So the state is actually taking action to try to make this happen at some undefined point in the future...
Mike
Seems to be the inevitable conclusion to all of this. Fredericksburg has always been, at least to myself, as the southern frontier of the greater DC area.
Anyone know what they're planning for the Duke Street interchange? Dr. Gridlock's article mentions that in conjunction with the I-395 HO/T project, they're planning something to deal with that annoying southbound lane drop where the right lane ends just after the westbound ramp but before the eastbound ramp, but he doesn't elaborate. It's the second time I've heard a vague mention of an improvement there with no details.
The obvious initial idea (obvious because it's theoretically the simplest) might be to extend the right lane up to the interchange and make it an exit-only lane onto the loop ramp towards the mall, but I'm not sure that'd improve traffic for two reasons–(1) people would drive all the way down to the gore area and try to shove left into the thru lanes, and (2) you have an entering loop ramp there coming from the mall and dumping them into an ending lane like that would probably cause more congestion on I-395 and on 236 as well (due to there being more traffic in the lane–at least now, bad as it is, there's a little bit of protection as ramp users enter the weave area).
I'm sure they're not building a C/D lane, even though that'd probably be the best thing, because the space there is so tight.
Hoo (condolences on the loss, by the way. I had given UVA the win at the 10 minute mark)
You might want to bookmark (do people do that anymore?) this site if you haven't already: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northern%20virginia/default.asp It gives updates on current projects and plans for future ones.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-395_south_-_duke_to_edsall.asp
Thanks. You know what, I'd heard about that but I heard "between Duke and Edsall" and assumed it was starting just south of the interchange and I thought the "fixing the lane drop" was a different project. Shame on me for not checking their site. You know what they say about "assume"!
A WaPo/Dr Gridlock (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/04/14/how-395-express-lanes-would-change-pentagon-access/) article on VDOT's proposals for the HOV lane/Eads St interchange. They looked at 4 options (including a DDI but not including a SPUI), and decided on an option that makes both ramps to/from the south reversible but which would close the outbound/southbound access from the HOV lanes back to the mainline near Washington Blvd. Non-HOV/HOT traffic coming off the 14th St Bridge would be forced to the mainline before the Route 1 South exit or forced to exit at Eads St.
The contract to extend the 95 Express Lanes south 2 miles was awarded this week ($31M). Construction to start this summer with the SB side opening late '17/early '18 and the NB part opens in summer '18...
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2016/ctb_awards_contract_for96133.asp
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 19, 2016, 12:22:21 PM
The contract to extend the 95 Express Lanes south 2 miles was awarded this week ($31M). Construction to start this summer with the SB side opening late '17/early '18 and the NB part opens in summer '18...
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2016/ctb_awards_contract_for96133.asp
Good!
I can't tell via what's available online: Will it be 2 lanes beyond the current end point, or just 1 lane? In the brochure online, it shows a 900' merge area (which is a little on the short side), but it's only one lane at that point. It's mostly just a graphic that doesn't show any real design attributes.
It is supposed to tie into the beginning of a new 4th general purpose lane as a part of the project to rebuild Exit 140 at SR 630 - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/interstate_95-route_630_courthouse_road_interchange_relocation_and_route_630_widening.asp
This graphic strongly suggests nearly all of the extension will be 1 lane - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/95Express/Map_95_Exp._So._Terminus.pdf
Unless I am looking at it wrong that graphic also suggests a longer merge area.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 19, 2016, 12:52:20 PM
It is supposed to tie into the beginning of a new 4th general purpose lane as a part of the project to rebuild Exit 140 at SR 630 - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/interstate_95-route_630_courthouse_road_interchange_relocation_and_route_630_widening.asp
This graphic strongly suggests nearly all of the extension will be 1 lane - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/95Express/Map_95_Exp._So._Terminus.pdf
Unless I am looking at it wrong that graphic also suggests a longer merge area.
Based on that overlay, it does show about a 2000' merge area, which is much more acceptable. Unfortunately, part of it is alongside the merge area from Rt. 610, which means you have traffic in the right lane merging left, and traffic from the left merging right, both meeting in the center lane. Not ideal.
And it does appear, graphic-wise, to be a single lane, for about 1.75 miles. Imagine any highway where you get stuck behind someone for a short distance because they're going slower than most, and you wait to find a gap to pass. Once you get one of those slower-than-mosts in that single lane, it'll be a ripple effect for much of rush hour.
Glad they're extending the lanes beyond the 610 interchange, but the current plans are less than desirable.
Hopefully the 4th through lane will be built as VDOT would like to do...that will give people from the left over 2 miles to get over if they need to use Exit 140 and almost 4 miles to merge if they are going further south...
If Virginia wins the FASTLANE and TIGER federal grants and decides to extend the I-95 HOT lanes south another 10 miles to US-17 in Falmouth, would the new SB and NB slip ramp project still happen(south of Garrisonville road)?
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 19, 2016, 07:30:17 PM
If Virginia wins the FASTLANE and TIGER federal grants and decides to extend the I-95 HOT lanes south another 10 miles to US-17 in Falmouth, would the new SB and NB slip ramp project still happen(south of Garrisonville road)?
I think the answer to that depends on how VDOT intends to have access to/from the lanes at SR 630 (Exit 140). If they don't want flyovers or direct connections at the interchange itself, the new ramps could serve that purpose...
Minor bit of semi-interesting signage news....I drove out to Fairfax earlier this afternoon and I noted the HO/T lane signs on the Beltway with the white "E-ZPASS EXPRESS" banners are gradually being converted to the purple banner used for the I-95 signs (recall the Beltway project was approved prior to current MUTCD standards for such things). I did not get a chance to notice whether the exit BGSs in the HO/T lanes are being converted to the green "EXPRESS EXIT" banners, simply because I only passed one HO/T lane exit on my way home (Braddock Road) and I didn't get to look at the sign due to the amount of traffic.
The time that the NB lanes close is switching to 10 a.m. so that SB travel can use the lanes by 11:30. Effective today.
This is being done during weekdays to help alleviate summer traffic which they say would benefit from the earlier switch.
http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/06/virginia-hov-lanes-adjusted-for-summer-travel/
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 30, 2016, 02:05:49 PM
Minor bit of semi-interesting signage news....I drove out to Fairfax earlier this afternoon and I noted the HO/T lane signs on the Beltway with the white "E-ZPASS EXPRESS" banners are gradually being converted to the purple banner used for the I-95 signs (recall the Beltway project was approved prior to current MUTCD standards for such things). I did not get a chance to notice whether the exit BGSs in the HO/T lanes are being converted to the green "EXPRESS EXIT" banners, simply because I only passed one HO/T lane exit on my way home (Braddock Road) and I didn't get to look at the sign due to the amount of traffic.
Following up on this, it appears they're changing most of the signs leading TO the lanes but not necessarily the ones OVER the lanes–or at least, they aren't changing those yet, which I suppose makes some sense because those would be the most disruptive to express lane traffic to alter.
Dr. Gridlock in the Washington Post: Virginia panel okays tougher carpool standard for I-66 HOT lanes (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/06/14/virginia-panel-okays-tougher-carpool-standard-for-i-66-hot-lanes/)
QuoteCarpoolers who want to get a free ride on Interstate 66 outside the Capital Beltway when Virginia opens High Occupancy Toll lanes will need to pick up an extra passenger.
QuoteThe Commonwealth Transportation Board, Virginia's top policy-making panel on transportation, voted unanimously Tuesday to upgrade the carpool standard from HOV2 to HOV3 when the HOT lanes open, probably in late 2020. That means the HOV standard for getting a free ride in the I-66 HOT lanes will match today's rules for the free drive in the HOT lanes on the Capital Beltway and Interstates 95 and 395.
QuoteThe board also agreed to award a five-year contract to the TransCore company to set up and operate HOT lanes on I-66 inside the Beltway. Construction of the tolling system, including the gantries, is scheduled to start this summer, with actual operations starting in summer 2017. The inside-the-Beltway system will be different from all others in Northern Virginia. It will be under the direct control of the state, rather than a private partner. The state will collect and distribute the toll revenue.
Never understood why those in the western suburbs were entitled to a sweetheart HOV-2 scenario while those of us in the southern suburbs were held to an HOV-3 (and my understanding previously an HOV-4) standard. I say have one passenger standard across the region, which is probably needed if you want near-seamless integration of the burgeoning Northern Virginia HOT network.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 14, 2016, 11:42:39 PM
Never understood why those in the western suburbs were entitled to a sweetheart HOV-2 scenario while those of us in the southern suburbs were held to an HOV-3 (and my understanding previously an HOV-4) standard. I say have one passenger standard across the region, which is probably needed if you want near-seamless integration of the burgeoning Northern Virginia HOT network.
I-66 inside the Beltway started out as HOV-4, then was reduced to HOV-3, and finally to HOV-2 when former Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va. 10) gained power after the 1994 elections, and was able to force the issue at the federal level. Wolf never represented any of the closer-in parts of Northern Virginia along the I-95/I-395 corridor, so it was probably not a big deal to him personally.
The late former Rep. Stanford Elmer "Stan" Parris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Parris) (R-Va. 8) got the HOV requirement reduced in the 95/395 corridor from HOV-4 to HOV-3 in the 1980's (and reminded radio listeners of that when he aired campaign commercials, along with frequent and snide remarks about the municipal government of the District of Columbia, and its Mayor at the time, Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. (Parris was a member of the House of Representatives District of Columbia Committee, which provided him with a convenient and taxpayer-funded venue to bash Barry and the D.C. Government)).
If the HOV/Toll system is going to work, then I think the threshold for free use by HOVs needs to be HOV-3,
not HOV-2.
Makes me wonder what sort of freebies or goodies that Congresspeople representing the outer suburbs will try to carve out for their constituents.
I know at the state (Richmond) level, Del. Ramadan has for years been using the "remove/reduce Dulles Greenway tolls" as a re-election stunt.
Whether its HOT-3 or HOT-4 doesn't really affect me (I either take bus during the rush hour or local lanes off-rush), but so long as its consistent across the region. Agree that HOT-3 will (or at least should) be the regional standard when it's all said and done.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 15, 2016, 12:53:36 PM
If the HOV/Toll system is going to work, then I think the threshold for free use by HOVs needs to be HOV-3, not HOV-2.
HOV-2 should be called "Spousepooling" because that's often the extent of it. Our neigbors to the west are going to have to learn how to slug like our commuters to the south...
Rather than having the same occupancy standard, I'd be more interested in seeing the same HOV hours (example: I-395 has HOV from 15:30 to 18:00, but I-66 inside the Beltway is from 16:00 to 18:30). Keeping track of the different times is more of a hassle than keeping track of the different occupancy rules. I guess it won't matter at some point in the next few years.
There will still be HOV-2 on the Dulles Toll Road and on Route 1 and Washington Street through Old Town.
I don't have any objection to so-called "spousepooling" since it still takes cars off the road.
BTW, I-66 was severely underutilized when it was HOV-4. If memory serves, it was a year at most before it was changed to -3. Interesting thing on I-395 was that a fair amount of the carpooling and slugging groups didn't like the change to -3. I used to see the occasional "Restore HOV-4" bumper sticker.
How many cars does spousepooling actually nudge off of the road though?
To put in another way, if you removed the HOV benefit to carpooling, I would suspect that many spousal partnerships would continue to carpool for reasons of familiarity, possible cost savings (particularly if one spouse can not have a own a car as a result) and marital bliss.
Of course, my hypothesis rests on the assumption of marital bliss. Being a bachelor, perhaps this is a dynamic I am misunderstanding :sombrero:
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 15, 2016, 02:12:43 PM
BTW, I-66 was severely underutilized when it was HOV-4. If memory serves, it was a year at most before it was changed to -3. Interesting thing on I-395 was that a fair amount of the carpooling and slugging groups didn't like the change to -3. I used to see the occasional "Restore HOV-4" bumper sticker.
Now that excess capacity can be sold off with the less-than-HOV toll option, isn't underutilization on HOT lanes moot?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 15, 2016, 02:32:35 PM
How many cars does spousepooling actually nudge off of the road though?
To put in another way, if you removed the HOV benefit to carpooling, I would suspect that many spousal partnerships would continue to carpool for reasons of familiarity, possible cost savings (particularly if one spouse can not have a own a car as a result) and marital bliss.
Of course, my hypothesis rests on the assumption of marital bliss. Being a bachelor, perhaps this is a dynamic I am misunderstanding :sombrero:
It probably definitely depends on the couple in question. No doubt some may have to get to work an hour earlier or stay an hour later in order to make it work. No doubt they have to commute a little out of their way, or take a longer walk than they otherwise would.
In my city of employment (where there's no HOanything), you can see the happy couples that commute together, and there's couples that drive separately.
So, would couples drive together? Often, there's little reason not to. But there's probably reasons why they wouldn't either.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 15, 2016, 02:33:47 PM
Now that excess capacity can be sold off with the less-than-HOV toll option, isn't underutilization on HOT lanes moot?
No, because I suspect that a lot of people are going to be angry about the elimination of the ability to drive their Prius and Honda Civic hybrid cars with one occupant, and more people mad about having to look for a third rider. Going to HOV-4 might work fine in a place like Singapore, but not in Virginia.
HOV-3 is a good compromise. It provides a much higher average auto occupancy than is normally seen in the D.C. area, while generally still leaving some capacity that can be sold-off.
Those issues have nothing to do with underutilization though, just HOV policy. In any context, people losing the hybrid exemption would be pissed, and people losing the "get one passenger and HOV it" would be pissed too.
In a non-HOT (i.e. traditional HOV setting), all of those people would be bumped out of the HOV lanes, and you'd wind up with a bunch of underutilized HOV lanes, people would complain to their elected officials, and they'd carve out enough exemptions to get the HOV lanes back to full-utilziation.
Now with HOT, you won't have the vast empty HOV lanes because that excess capacity will be sold off rather than left unused. So nobody will complain about "carpool lanes that nobody uses".
There are still people complaining about the "empty" HO/T lanes on the Beltway some four years in. The whole point of the variable rolling is to keep them from getting jammed–if they're congested (other than for a wreck), the system isn't working.
When EZ Pass first started, some people (we'll say, the ones paying cash) were complaining that the EZ Pass lanes were empty. They should reduce the number of EZ Pass lanes so that those people had just as long of a line as cash payers.
Clearly, that wasn't the intention, and when EZ Pass lanes handle at least 4 times the number of vehicles that cash lanes handle, it's almost an impossible feat to keep those lanes as congested as the cash lanes.
Some people just don't get the fact that things are done to reduce/eliminate congestion.
Yes, but to each individual, the only congestion they care about is the congestion directly affecting them. Aggregates have no meaning to them, whereas aggregates do have impacts on engineers,planners,politicians, etc
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 15, 2016, 03:43:23 PM
There are still people complaining about the "empty" HO/T lanes on the Beltway some four years in. The whole point of the variable rolling is to keep them from getting jammed–if they're congested (other than for a wreck), the system isn't working.
Oh, in the Transurban managed lanes on the Inner Loop north of Va. 267 (Toll Road), there is
plenty of recurring and severe congestion (in some ways, rather like the I-95 managed lanes approaching Garrisonville).
Why wouldn't there be? More cars in the HOT lanes means more $$$ for Transurban.
I don't see any sensible reason why Transurban would try to restrict toll-paying car volume in its lanes. That'd just be turning business away.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 15, 2016, 03:22:50 PM
Those issues have nothing to do with underutilization though, just HOV policy. In any context, people losing the hybrid exemption would be pissed, and people losing the "get one passenger and HOV it" would be pissed too.
In a non-HOT (i.e. traditional HOV setting), all of those people would be bumped out of the HOV lanes, and you'd wind up with a bunch of underutilized HOV lanes, people would complain to their elected officials, and they'd carve out enough exemptions to get the HOV lanes back to full-utilziation.
Those exemptions (the Dulles Airport exemption (which was there from the start in 1982); HOV-3 to HOV-2; and most-recently the "Clean Fuel" tags) on I-66 (inside the Beltway) have made HOV much less attractive than it once was, because the lanes do not run nearly as fast as they would at free-flow.
Outside the Beltway, the problems are somewhat different, and caused in part by violators ducking into and out of the HOV lanes, and because drivers in Northern Virginia (unlike (for example) California) appear to be uncomfortable going fast next to traffic that is moving slowly or is at a complete stop.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 15, 2016, 03:22:50 PM
Now with HOT, you won't have the vast empty HOV lanes because that excess capacity will be sold off rather than left unused. So nobody will complain about "carpool lanes that nobody uses".
Oh, people will still complain.
Even through Md. 200 (ICC) is now carrying plenty of traffic (and drivers of HOVs have never been granted free passage on Maryland's toll roads and toll crossings), there are those that claim that its lanes are "empty" (they are definitely not empty).
Yeah, I think we agree. Weak-kneed State DOTs give in to suburban outcry and kill HOV by a thousand cuts (ironically, harming the people who went out of their way to work within the bounds of HOV standards).
The solution is to hand over the lanes to a private vendor who doesn't have to worry about reelection or department budgets and can give the middle finger to the general public (look at the Greenway's resolve in standing up to Del. Ramadan).
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 15, 2016, 04:31:36 PM
Why wouldn't there be? More cars in the HOT lanes means more $$$ for Transurban.
I don't see any sensible reason why Transurban would try to restrict toll-paying car volume in its lanes. That'd just be turning business away.
cpzilliacus and froggie probably know for sure, but I believe they're required to pay a financial penalty to the Commonwealth if speeds drop too much too often.
The issue at the north end isn't caused by Transurban but rather by the Beltway itself having fewer lanes once the express lanes end.
I use the lanes southbound twice a week on the way home (Monday and Friday; on the other days I use the Metro, though that may change during Surge 2 and it will change during Surges 3 and 4). At around 17:50 the toll from I-66 to Springfield is usually between $7.25 and $8.50. There's plenty of traffic in the lanes, enough to make passing difficult, but it typically moves at 70 mph while the "free" lanes are at a standstill. That says to me the HO/T system is working as it should, at least in that section.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 15, 2016, 04:54:37 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 15, 2016, 04:31:36 PM
Why wouldn't there be? More cars in the HOT lanes means more $$$ for Transurban.
I don't see any sensible reason why Transurban would try to restrict toll-paying car volume in its lanes. That'd just be turning business away.
cpzilliacus and froggie probably know for sure, but I believe they're required to pay a financial penalty to the Commonwealth if speeds drop too much too often.
I'll be surprised if it ever comes to that. I have to assume there are force majeure elements of the contract that they'll exploit.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 15, 2016, 04:54:37 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 15, 2016, 04:31:36 PM
Why wouldn't there be? More cars in the HOT lanes means more $$$ for Transurban.
I don't see any sensible reason why Transurban would try to restrict toll-paying car volume in its lanes. That'd just be turning business away.
cpzilliacus and froggie probably know for sure, but I believe they're required to pay a financial penalty to the Commonwealth if speeds drop too much too often.
I do not know what the penalty is, but I do know that it is easy enough to tell what the speeds are now - with no help or assistance from Transurban required.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 15, 2016, 04:54:37 PM
The issue at the north end isn't caused by Transurban but rather by the Beltway itself having fewer lanes once the express lanes end.
It was a very poor choice as a place for the managed lanes to end - and I realize that Maryland was not interested in working with Virginia (at least at the time) to run the managed lanes onto and north of the American Legion Bridge.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 15, 2016, 04:54:37 PM
I use the lanes southbound twice a week on the way home (Monday and Friday; on the other days I use the Metro, though that may change during Surge 2 and it will change during Surges 3 and 4). At around 17:50 the toll from I-66 to Springfield is usually between $7.25 and $8.50. There's plenty of traffic in the lanes, enough to make passing difficult, but it typically moves at 70 mph while the "free" lanes are at a standstill. That says to me the HO/T system is working as it should, at least in that section.
Agreed.
WTOP Radio: I-66 toll contracts awarded, 1 nearly twice estimate (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/06/i-66-toll-contracts-awarded-1-nearly-twice-estimate/)
QuotePlans toll single drivers traveling on Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway during the rush hour moved much closer to reality Tuesday with the award of two major contracts, including one that was far higher than what the Virginia Department of Transportation had estimated.
QuoteThe construction contract awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board for new electronic toll gantries and signs came in at $33.7 million, nearly twice the $17.5 million projection from VDOT.
Quote"We basically missed it, we blew the estimate," Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said
Looks like Fort Myer Construction can already cut their holiday bonus checks.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 16, 2016, 07:38:37 PM
Looks like Fort Myer Construction can already cut their holiday bonus checks.
Maryland (in the form of SHA MDTA) has built many of those in recent times (the ICC, then the I-95 ETLs).
Wonder if anyone at VDOT considered asking Maryland how much they paid for all-electronic tolling systems?
And yet, people around here love to denouce Transurban for the fact of being a foreign company (at least the mouthbreathers on WTOP's comment section). As if it makes any difference where the tolling firm is incorporated. I guess the masses should be pleased that a local company will get a cut of the action this time.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2016, 07:14:36 PM
WTOP Radio: I-66 toll contracts awarded, 1 nearly twice estimate (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/06/i-66-toll-contracts-awarded-1-nearly-twice-estimate/)
QuotePlans toll single drivers traveling on Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway during the rush hour moved much closer to reality Tuesday with the award of two major contracts, including one that was far higher than what the Virginia Department of Transportation had estimated.
QuoteThe construction contract awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board for new electronic toll gantries and signs came in at $33.7 million, nearly twice the $17.5 million projection from VDOT.
Quote“We basically missed it, we blew the estimate,” Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said
There's no reason why VDOT had to award that contract. They could've thrown out the bids and gave the contract another look to see what could be removed to make the project cheaper. A few million here or there isn't that big of a deal. Doubling the expected amount is. Sure, by doing so it delays the project a few months, but for $17 million, it's worth it.
I always hate to say something is fishy, because there's a lot that goes on that we don't know about. But to just award the contract at twice its projected cost...yeah, that's fishy.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2016, 10:40:51 PM
There's no reason why VDOT had to award that contract. They could've thrown out the bids and gave the contract another look to see what could be removed to make the project cheaper. A few million here or there isn't that big of a deal. Doubling the expected amount is. Sure, by doing so it delays the project a few months, but for $17 million, it's worth it.
I always hate to say something is fishy, because there's a lot that goes on that we don't know about. But to just award the contract at twice its projected cost...yeah, that's fishy.
Given that Virginia governors cannot succeed themselves, and given that Gov. McAuliffe has made "fixing" I-66 a top priority of his administration, I suspect that is the reason that the decision was made to award the contract in spite of the (high) price instead of rejecting the one bid and putting it out for another round of bidders.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2016, 10:53:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2016, 10:40:51 PM
There's no reason why VDOT had to award that contract. They could've thrown out the bids and gave the contract another look to see what could be removed to make the project cheaper. A few million here or there isn't that big of a deal. Doubling the expected amount is. Sure, by doing so it delays the project a few months, but for $17 million, it's worth it.
I always hate to say something is fishy, because there's a lot that goes on that we don't know about. But to just award the contract at twice its projected cost...yeah, that's fishy.
Given that Virginia governors cannot succeed themselves, and given that Gov. McAuliffe has made "fixing" I-66 a top priority of his administration, I suspect that is the reason that the decision was made to award the contract in spite of the (high) price instead of rejecting the one bid and putting it out for another round of bidders.
In last month's minutes of the NJ Turnpike Authority in regards to a project on the Newark Bay Extension, it had this similar issue with higher costs:
QuoteSeven bid proposals were received on May 5, 2016 for the above publicly advertised contract, as shown on the attached bid summary sheet. The low bid proposal in the amount of $55,726,255.34 may be compared to the second lowest bidder in the amount of $56,800,760.97, which was within 2% of the low bid. These bids are higher than the Engineer's Estimate in the amount of $52,683,594.25 due to the higher unit costs for select items requiring difficult access to complete, significant preparatory work to perform or the necessary handling of hazardous materials. The low bidder, J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc. & Joseph M. Sanzari, Inc., A Joint Venture has performed work for the Authority and is considered competent to complete this contract.
So, as this shows, even a small variance should be investigated and described on at a bare minimum. "We blew the estimate", when they are pricing out hundreds of projects a year throughout the state, simply doesn't happen. It's unfortunate that you're probably right - that the governor has this as a pet project and doesn't really care about the costs. Depending on your media down there, if they wanted to investigate this they may come across other issues they could probably make the governor's last year in office a hellish time.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 19, 2016, 12:22:21 PM
The contract to extend the 95 Express Lanes south 2 miles was awarded this week ($31M). Construction to start this summer with the SB side opening late '17/early '18 and the NB part opens in summer '18...
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2016/ctb_awards_contract_for96133.asp
Orange signs are going up today (still covered) and some equipment has arrived in the median south of SR 610, so I think they are about to start removing trees from the median for this extension...
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 13, 2016, 08:01:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 19, 2016, 12:22:21 PM
The contract to extend the 95 Express Lanes south 2 miles was awarded this week ($31M). Construction to start this summer with the SB side opening late '17/early '18 and the NB part opens in summer '18...
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2016/ctb_awards_contract_for96133.asp
Orange signs are going up today (still covered) and some equipment has arrived in the median south of SR 610, so I think they are about to start removing trees from the median for this extension...
Surprising that VDOT is still going through with this project considering the fact that they just won a 165 million doller federal grant to extend the HOT Lanes 10 miles further south to Fredericksburg.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 13, 2016, 08:47:36 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 13, 2016, 08:01:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 19, 2016, 12:22:21 PM
The contract to extend the 95 Express Lanes south 2 miles was awarded this week ($31M). Construction to start this summer with the SB side opening late '17/early '18 and the NB part opens in summer '18...
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2016/ctb_awards_contract_for96133.asp
Orange signs are going up today (still covered) and some equipment has arrived in the median south of SR 610, so I think they are about to start removing trees from the median for this extension...
Surprising that VDOT is still going through with this project considering the fact that they just won a 165 million dollar federal grant to extend the HOT Lanes 10 miles further south to Fredericksburg.
You do realize that the bottleneck there is a problem
now that would need to get fixed anyway. (especially considering the reduction of weaving that should occur on I-95 SB between the current southern endpoint and SR 610).
AFAIK, the fourth lane extension SB to SR 630 is still dependent on the bid for the rest of the interchange project there.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 13, 2016, 09:20:19 PM
[You do realize that the bottleneck there is a problem now that would need to get fixed anyway. (especially considering the reduction of weaving that should occur on I-95 SB between the current southern endpoint and SR 610).
AFAIK, the fourth lane extension SB to SR 630 is still dependent on the bid for the rest of the interchange project there.]
Yes I understand how bad the bottleneck is in Garrisonvile, I was just under the impression that because of VDOT winning the FASTLANE grant that it would just become part of the HOT lane extension to Fredericksburg. Now since that extension won't start until mid 2018, I have no problem with them fixing the current problem now. The sooner the better.
Do any of the rest of you use the HO/T lanes on a regular basis? If so, have you noticed any abnormally long toll-processing cycles recently? The reason I ask is that most afternoons this summer we've used the I-495 lanes from I-66 to Springfield, then the I-95 lanes from the Beltway to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. Usually it takes about four days for tolls to post. But since August 1, we had no tolls post at all until August 12, on which date the tolls for August 2 and 3 posted. (I don't remember whether we used the lanes on August 1. I assume so, but I just don't remember.) I was getting concerned about it because during the week of August 1 we were driving Ms1995hoo's car, which we do not normally use for summer commutes since my car has a stronger AC system, and the lack of posted tolls made me concerned that we might have a dead transponder battery. Those August 2 and 3 tolls are still the most recent ones to post.
It makes it damn hard to keep track of and manage your E-ZPass balance when they take that long to post the transactions. Has anybody else noticed this sort of issue lately?
BTW, it prompts a separate question: Is there any way, aside from driving on a "conventional" toll road where you go through a tollbooth with traffic lights, to test your E-ZPass transponder battery?
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2016, 02:47:51 PM
It makes it damn hard to keep track of and manage your E-ZPass balance when they take that long to post the transactions. Has anybody else noticed this sort of issue lately?
BTW, it prompts a separate question: Is there any way, aside from driving on a "conventional" toll road where you go through a tollbooth with traffic lights, to test your E-ZPass transponder battery?
It has been a while since I was a paying customer on the Transurban HOV/Toll lanes in Northern Virginia (I have used the I-95 and the I-495 lanes earlier this year). I did not notice it taking an especially long time to post to my MDTA E-ZPass account.
I believe that all E-ZPass transactions are run through one VDOT E-ZPass posting process, regardless of which toll road or toll crossing you use. I have been on two in Virginia recently, and will check to see how long it takes for those to post.
Regarding batteries in the transponder, aside from driving through a conventional toll barrier (like the Dulles Toll Road or the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel) and looking for the response, you can go to a walk-in E-ZPass service center and have the health of your transponder checked (at least in Maryland - I presume the Virginia ones have the capability as well). The Maryland people have a device that diagnoses a transponder for any problems, including low battery.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2016, 02:04:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2016, 02:47:51 PM
It makes it damn hard to keep track of and manage your E-ZPass balance when they take that long to post the transactions. Has anybody else noticed this sort of issue lately?
BTW, it prompts a separate question: Is there any way, aside from driving on a "conventional" toll road where you go through a tollbooth with traffic lights, to test your E-ZPass transponder battery?
It has been a while since I was a paying customer on the Transurban HOV/Toll lanes in Northern Virginia (I have used the I-95 and the I-495 lanes earlier this year). I did not notice it taking an especially long time to post to my MDTA E-ZPass account.
I believe that all E-ZPass transactions are run through one VDOT E-ZPass posting process, regardless of which toll road or toll crossing you use. I have been on two in Virginia recently, and will check to see how long it takes for those to post.
Regarding batteries in the transponder, aside from driving through a conventional toll barrier (like the Dulles Toll Road or the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel) and looking for the response, you can go to a walk-in E-ZPass service center and have the health of your transponder checked (at least in Maryland - I presume the Virginia ones have the capability as well). The Maryland people have a device that diagnoses a transponder for any problems, including low battery.
I have never had problems with transactions being posted for my VA EZPASS for anything other than the I-95 and I-495 HOT Lanes. (I did a test run coming back to Harrisburg the Sunday after Thanksgiving and noticed that (it happened to be about a week). All of my PA transactions show up usually within 2-3 days.)
Washington Post: Drivers wary of HOT times ahead on I-66 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/drivers-wary-of-hot-times-ahead-on-i-66/2016/08/13/c293e066-5fbb-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html)
QuoteThe Aug. 1 groundbreaking ceremony for the I-66 HOT lanes project inside the Capital Beltway sparked many questions from travelers who wanted to know precisely how this new thing would affect them.
QuoteThis is only natural. Most travelers don't spend their commute time pondering grand transportation strategy. They want to know when they will get there and how much it will cost. That leads to common concerns such as this about the high-occupancy toll lanes.
One annoying aspect I recently found on the HO/T lanes that should be self-evident but wasn't something I'd thought much about: Their claim that you lock in your toll rate when you enter the lanes is not strictly accurate. You only lock in your rate when you pass under the first gantry. On August 4, the sign on I-66 advertised $7.75 to Springfield, but we hit stopped traffic right at the bottom of the ramp (none of the advance signage warned of it) and it took ten minutes to reach the first gantry. We were charged $8.60. That's not enough of a difference for me to complain to them and make a stink about it, but it does underscore one flaw with putting all the gantries over the road instead of the exit/entrance ramps–if you hit stopped traffic, you're not assured of getting the advertised toll rate. I would have been a lot more annoyed if the toll had spiked to $11.40 or so!
Some of the comments on today's Washington Post article amount to how the drivers will take other routes than 66 once the HOT system goes live, but isn't that a core (if often unmentioned) element of HOT lanes, which is that drivers will simply not make certain trips, or make the same trip on a different route, leaving the HOT lanes populated by people who are more able and willing to pay the toll or meet the HOV requirement?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 14, 2016, 01:01:06 PM
Some of the comments on today's Washington Post article amount to how the drivers will take other routes than 66 once the HOT system goes live, but isn't that a core (if often unmentioned) element of HOT lanes, which is that drivers will simply not make certain trips, or make the same trip on a different route, leaving the HOT lanes populated by people who are more able and willing to pay the toll or meet the HOV requirement?
Those people's comments don't make a whole lot of sense unless they use the road juuussssst outside the current HOV hours, at least not until 2020. If you currently use it during those hours as an HOV, you'll be able to continue doing so with no toll as long as you get an E-ZPass Flex (until 2020 when it goes to HO/T-3). If you don't currently use it at those times because you're an SOV, you'll now have an additional option you didn't have before. True, that will lead to more traffic on the highway, but at least during the afternoon HOV hours, it sure seems like there's excess capacity because I can usually set my cruise control at 65 to 70 mph with no issues. (Morning is a different story. We do not use I-66 during the mornings because it's too slow.) So I don't see why anyone now using the road during HOV hours would be bailing off to other routes until the 3-person requirement kicks in–but we had already been told they planned to do that anyway regardless of the HO/T thing, so it's a bit of a red herring to cite it. If you use the road just outside HOV hours–and, like on I-395, I sometimes see people parked on the shoulder illegally in Rosslyn waiting for 6:30–then you might have a beef because if you want to commute at the same time you'll now have to change your habits. But nothing ever guarantees anyone the right to an unchanging commute.
I think a lot of those commenters are also missing the point that it will not be a 24/7 HO/T operation. The ones bitching about not being able to go to Dulles Airport without paying a toll are just plain stupid. I do, however, think it doesn't help matters having three different sets of HO/T rules on three different local highways located close together.
But in general, your comment is spot-on. The whole point of variable tolling is to manage congestion by raising the tolls to "price out" some drivers. In my admittedly unscientific observation, it seems to work pretty well on the Beltway except when there's a wreck that affects the express lanes. Regardless of what the toll is, during the PM rush hour we always move along between 60 and 70 mph (again, unless there's a wreck) and the general-purpose lanes are almost always at a standstill until after you're past Gallows Road.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2016, 12:18:33 PM
One annoying aspect I recently found on the HO/T lanes that should be self-evident but wasn't something I'd thought much about: Their claim that you lock in your toll rate when you enter the lanes is not strictly accurate. You only lock in your rate when you pass under the first gantry. On August 4, the sign on I-66 advertised $7.75 to Springfield, but we hit stopped traffic right at the bottom of the ramp (none of the advance signage warned of it) and it took ten minutes to reach the first gantry. We were charged $8.60. That's not enough of a difference for me to complain to them and make a stink about it, but it does underscore one flaw with putting all the gantries over the road instead of the exit/entrance ramps–if you hit stopped traffic, you're not assured of getting the advertised toll rate. I would have been a lot more annoyed if the toll had spiked to $11.40 or so!
My understanding is that you
do "lock in" a price on the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes when you enter - but
not the I-95/I-395 reversible HOV/Toll lanes, which is why the dynamic message signs display prices to the users of those lanes giving them the opportunity to exit if the price is too high.
Still, this does not excuse them for charging you a premium price when you got less than a premium trip.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 14, 2016, 01:01:06 PM
Some of the comments on today's Washington Post article amount to how the drivers will take other routes than 66 once the HOT system goes live, but isn't that a core (if often unmentioned) element of HOT lanes, which is that drivers will simply not make certain trips, or make the same trip on a different route, leaving the HOT lanes populated by people who are more able and willing to pay the toll or meet the HOV requirement?
I prefer to say that the HOV/Toll lanes are supposed to provide a good level-of-service to those that pay or comply with the HOV requirement.
There is only so much capacity.
But it's pretty clear to me that the HOV/Toll lanes, when properly managed, will serve more traffic and person trips then the current system of allocating capacity by means of miserable and recurring congestion, especially for eastbound movements past the exit ramp at Exit 69 and the entry from Sycamore Street.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2016, 12:44:24 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2016, 12:18:33 PM
One annoying aspect I recently found on the HO/T lanes that should be self-evident but wasn't something I'd thought much about: Their claim that you lock in your toll rate when you enter the lanes is not strictly accurate. You only lock in your rate when you pass under the first gantry. On August 4, the sign on I-66 advertised $7.75 to Springfield, but we hit stopped traffic right at the bottom of the ramp (none of the advance signage warned of it) and it took ten minutes to reach the first gantry. We were charged $8.60. That's not enough of a difference for me to complain to them and make a stink about it, but it does underscore one flaw with putting all the gantries over the road instead of the exit/entrance ramps–if you hit stopped traffic, you're not assured of getting the advertised toll rate. I would have been a lot more annoyed if the toll had spiked to $11.40 or so!
My understanding is that you do "lock in" a price on the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes when you enter - but not the I-95/I-395 reversible HOV/Toll lanes, which is why the dynamic message signs display prices to the users of those lanes giving them the opportunity to exit if the price is too high.
Still, this does not excuse them for charging you a premium price when you got less than a premium trip.
They do say it's when you enter, but practically speaking, the system doesn't know you've entered until you pass under the first gantry, at which time you lock in your rate for the trip (I-495) or for that segment (I-95). So if, like it did for us that day, it takes ten minutes to reach the "lock-in point," the rate may change before you lock it.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2016, 07:23:08 AM
They do say it's when you enter, but practically speaking, the system doesn't know you've entered until you pass under the first gantry, at which time you lock in your rate for the trip (I-495) or for that segment (I-95). So if, like it did for us that day, it takes ten minutes to reach the "lock-in point," the rate may change before you lock it.
That's an excellent and correct observation. The tolling points were presumably kept to a minimum (just enough to allow Transurban to collect its revenue), which means that an incident that impacts traffic could cause patrons to be charged for a fast trip that turned out to be very slow.
I can see it's one of those things where because the difference is so low, no one will make waves about it. But in the aggregate, the amount of additional money brought it would be huge. This is one of those cases where someone could file a lawsuit, have it brought up to class action status, and convince the company that they need to provide transponder readers at the sign's location, not downstream where pricing adjustments can occur.
Or, change the pricing on the sign, but allow for a delay for motorists to reach the first transponder.
Is it true that the pricing can go down by the time you reach the first transponder? I would think so. But that doesn't mean they can charge more than advertised when the prices go up.
How would it be any different from when you get an estimate from a plumber, but the actual total turns out to be different based on various factors. You don't get to not pay the plumber just because his estimate was different than the actual invoice. I suppose there could be a giant asterisk next to the gantry that indicates that the price shown is the current price and is subject to change without notice.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 15, 2016, 10:24:18 AM
How would it be any different from when you get an estimate from a plumber, but the actual total turns out to be different based on various factors. You don't get to not pay the plumber just because his estimate was different than the actual invoice. I suppose there could be a giant asterisk next to the gantry that indicates that the price shown is the current price and is subject to change without notice.
Because the pricing sign isn't an estimate. And a good plumber tells you when the prices will increase based on those various factors.
Their website: https://www.expresslanes.com/pricing
And the specific language used on the website:
QuoteYou will see signs in advance of Express Lanes entry points letting you know the price to travel in the lanes. When you pass under a pricing sign, you lock in your toll rate until the last exit shown on the sign
Continuing with the plumber analogy, if he guarantees you a rate, and then tries to increase it, you're probably going to sue the crap out of him.
Quote from: vdeane on August 15, 2016, 12:59:45 PM
Continuing with the plumber analogy, if he guarantees you a rate, and then tries to increase it, you're probably going to sue the crap out of him.
The difference there, I think, is that his hourly labor rate is not the same thing as a job estimate.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2016, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 15, 2016, 12:59:45 PM
Continuing with the plumber analogy, if he guarantees you a rate, and then tries to increase it, you're probably going to sue the crap out of him.
The difference there, I think, is that his hourly labor rate is not the same thing as a job estimate.
My point exactly...if the plumber says that he "thinks" it will be $150 and it winds up being higher, you still have to pay that invoice.
Now, if you drove under the gantry when the price was $2.00 and you actually got billed for $3.00, then that's an error and should be remedied. However, if you're given information that the toll is $1.50, and by the time you actually under the gantry it has risen to $2.00, and you're billed for $2.00, then I don't see an error. I view the gantry-provided information as a good-faith estimate.
But TransUrban claims it's a guarantee, which is the point. Think of the plumber saying "the entire job will cost $150, not a penny more, guaranteed" (ignore the fact that plumbers give estimates for the sake of argument) and then charging $200.
Ultimately the point vdeane makes is why I think the gantry should be over the ramp (or right at the start of the lanes/segment, as appropriate). I daresay that might speed up till processing, too, since it'd work like any ticket system toll road if your transponder were only read twice.
BTW, as I noted, the 85¢ difference between what the sign said and what we paid wasn't enough to get me overly mad, but if it had been a $3 or $4 difference, that'd be a different story.
Just visited their website, and I see the point. I think all they'll have to do is change the lexicon to the gantry (instead of toll sign) and include a disclaimer that tolls may change between the last time you saw a price sign and when the toll is charged.
That said, I think contingencies under Hoo's situation would probably fall under some sort of redress opportunity (assuming they don't have immunity from such claims), for people who were gauranteed a price and then not charged that price.
I think the way it is supposed to work is that the price on the sign changes, and if it takes X seconds to drive from the sign to the gantry, then the price displayed on the sign will not be enforced by the gantry for X seconds later.
So if the price on the sign changes at 9:00:20, and it takes 30 seconds to drive from the sign to the gantry, then the gantry should charge the old price and not the new price until 9:00:50. Of course, the system is designed to keep traffic moving at full speed all the time, and it is not designed for it to take 10 minutes to reach the gantry from the sign. That is poor management of the lanes and traffic, and you should complain, IMO.
Note that on the I-66-inside the Beltway project, there is a 5th gantry on the EB lanes of 267 just east of 123. Unlike the 4 mainline gantries on I-66 itself, the one on 267 will not charge a toll itself, but will simply lock in the appropriate toll rate for cars entering prior to passing under 1, 2, or 3 of the gantries on I-66. This was included in the plans presumably because traffic is so bad on 267 east that it can take a very long time to reach the first toll gantry from the 267/123 interchange. They had a special name for this gantry, and I forget what it is called. But they made it very clear in the literature that tolls are not charged for use of 267, only for I-66, but that this gantry was needed to record entries from 267.
The map I saw on Dr. Gridlock's blog called the one you mention the "Registration" gantry.
Edited to add: I just looked at my E-ZPass statement and my two tolls (in my wife's car) from August 1 on I-495 and I-95 just posted yesterday, August 16. That's a ridiculous delay.
Following up on the issue about the rate sign versus the gantry, tonight I kept an eye on my trip odometer from the final rate sign prior to the Beltway on westbound I-66 to the first gantry in the southbound HO/T lanes. It's 1.5 miles. So it's understandable why there can be an issue when the traffic is heavy. More so if you enter at Braddock Road, where it's about two miles, or if you use the southern end of the I-95 lanes, where going northbound it's about eight miles before the gantry (although I haven't heard of any northbound delays there). All the more reason why it seems like it'd make more sense just to have the gantries over the ramps or entrances/exits.
Edited to add: BTW, obviously you need gantries over the points where you move between segments on I-95. Adding that because if I don't, someone will "correct" me to do so, though clearly my focus was on a different issue.
Washington Post: Whatever they call it, you pay more to go faster (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/whatever-they-call-it-you-pay-more-to-go-faster/2016/09/24/f45cdf34-80eb-11e6-a52d-9a865a0ed0d4_story.html)
QuoteThis issue of toll roads and carpool lanes will not only linger for years in Virginia, but also across the Potomac River, where it will spawn debates in Maryland.
QuoteThis past week, a group of civic, business and political leaders in Maryland launched a campaign for improvements to I-270 that includes adding toll lanes. In making their pitch, several leaders of Fix270Now cited what Virginia has been doing in creating a network of HOT lanes.
QuoteAnd right now, Virginia is proceeding with the extension of that network onto I-66 and the rest of I-395, exposing the Annandale community to this style of highway travel in virtually all directions.
QuoteIt's difficult to know exactly what the road system for the 21st century will wind up looking like. Driverless cars, ride hailing and quicker access to information about travel options will revolutionize our thinking.
WTOP Radio: New toll relief plan could expand to Northern Virginia (http://wtop.com/virginia/2016/10/new-toll-relief-plan-expand-northern-virginia/)
QuoteA new toll relief plan in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia could foreshadow similar benefits for drivers in Northern Virginia.
QuoteThe Toll Relief Program announced for low-income Norfolk and Portsmouth residents this week will offer refunds of 75 cents per trip for qualifying residents who take eight or more trips in a month through the Downtown or Midtown tunnels.
QuoteBut more and more toll facilities are coming to Northern Virginia: The Virginia Department of Transportation is launching rush-hour tolls next year for solo drivers on Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway and preparing to select a preferred private partner for construction of new Express Lanes outside the Beltway. And a top Virginia transportation official told WTOP the state plans to consider similar toll discount plans for Northern Virginia residents in the future.
QuoteAny new toll relief program would be contingent on the success of the rebates in Hampton Roads.
QuoteIn that program, the operator of the tunnels, Elizabeth River Crossings, is providing $500,000 per year for 10 years in toll offsets. To qualify for the rebates, drivers must live in Norfolk or Portsmouth, make $30,000 or less per year, have or get a Virginia E-ZPass account, and reapply each year with proof of residency and income.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 13, 2016, 08:01:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 19, 2016, 12:22:21 PM
The contract to extend the 95 Express Lanes south 2 miles was awarded this week ($31M). Construction to start this summer with the SB side opening late '17/early '18 and the NB part opens in summer '18...
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2016/ctb_awards_contract_for96133.asp
Orange signs are going up today (still covered) and some equipment has arrived in the median south of SR 610, so I think they are about to start removing trees from the median for this extension...
A brief update on the 2 mile southern extension of the 95 HOoT lanes...
Tree removal is essentially complete now. There is a fair bit of earth removal to be done, especially south of SR 610 - a couple different parts of the median are taller than the 610 overpass...
The Outer Loop toll lanes yesterday were $30 at 5:10 p.m. There was a wreck at the end of the lanes a little before then and then also a wreck near US 29. There have been a fair number of crashes between I-66 and Gallows Rd.
The highest I had seen prior to this was $21.
My observation is that if it is higher than $15, it is definitely not free flowing throughout, though it is still possible the average speed for the entire trip would still be at least 45 mph.
Over the last couple months it has been routine that it is slow from I-66 to Gallows Rd from volume and trying to work in merging traffic from US 29, even when there were no crashes. The mainline beltway is routinely crawling from VA 123 to Gallows...
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 07, 2016, 07:27:04 AM
Over the last couple months it has been routine that it is slow from I-66 to Gallows Rd from volume and trying to work in merging traffic from US 29, even when there were no crashes. The mainline beltway is routinely crawling from VA 123 to Gallows...
That's impressive (and not entirely in a good way, since it will probably lead to calls for government intervention in the process of setting and computing tolls).
Is there any upper bound, either by policy or algorithm?
Traffic was so bad that it was faster for me to park in Rosslyn and walk to Georgetown than it was to inch along to the Key Bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: December 08, 2016, 07:04:36 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 07, 2016, 07:27:04 AM
The mainline beltway is routinely crawling from VA 123 to Gallows...
Probably the new normal considering the current and planned development in the Tysons Corner area.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2016, 11:46:35 PM
Is there any upper bound, either by policy or algorithm?
....
No.
Considering the vote in favor of extending the HOT Lanes to the Potomac on I-395 was 5-0 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/12/14/arlington-says-maybe-to-new-hot-lanes-plan/?utm_term=.97f118374b53), I am unsure why Dr. Gridlock put "maybe" in the article title.
Haven't heard of this happening before: Tolls have been eliminated on the Inner Loop this morning due to an approximately 30-car pileup at Gallows Road, I assume due to the freezing rain.
This used to happen once every few years on 95 when it was still just an HOV setup. Restrictions would be lifted if the mainline was going to be closed for a longer period of time.
expresslanes.com suggests that VDOT has the authority to make the tolls be lifted in certain situations...
Yeah, I remember that with the HOV often enough. I just don't recall this having been done as to the tolls so far except late at night when snow was forecast because they wanted to encourage people to use all the lanes so snow wouldn't accumulate as much.
I wonder if VDOT has to make an in-kind payment to Transurban to offset lost projected revenue.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 17, 2016, 11:52:39 AM
I wonder if VDOT has to make an in-kind payment to Transurban to offset lost projected revenue.
Have you been out at all? If so, how are the roads in Alexandria? Trying to determine whether to head out soon.
Edited to add: Never mind. I was scheduled to have lunch with my father and brother at RT's, but my dad lives at the bottom of a hill and found his driveway is still a sheet of ice, so we cancelled. Oh well. I can't say as I wanted him driving today anyway.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 17, 2016, 12:02:19 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 17, 2016, 11:52:39 AM
I wonder if VDOT has to make an in-kind payment to Transurban to offset lost projected revenue.
Have you been out at all? If so, how are the roads in Alexandria? Trying to determine whether to head out soon.
Edited to add: Never mind. I was scheduled to have lunch with my father and brother at RT's, but my dad lives at the bottom of a hill and found his driveway is still a sheet of ice, so we cancelled. Oh well. I can't say as I wanted him driving today anyway.
RT's is on my to-do list concerning local restaurants.
I was going to pick up a family member up Glebe Rd from Ballston to take him to Rosslyn to pick up a bus to NYC at 11 AM, but he rebooked his trip for like 2 PM, which was in part to let the roads soften up for the benefit of both myself and his bus.
RT's is owned by the same people who own the Warehouse and the Wharf, both on King Street. The she-crab soup is a must-have.
For what it's worth, roads were fine at 1 PM...sidewalks not so much if in the shade or untreated.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 17, 2016, 03:03:27 PM
For what it's worth, roads were fine at 1 PM...sidewalks not so much if in the shade or untreated.
Yeah, but I'm glad we cancelled. Just as well my father wasn't out there driving, especially since he said his neighborhood is icy. His balance and his reflexes are not what they used to be, but it wouldn't have made sense for one of us to go pick him up, and he would have refused anyway. Better just to postpone.
:bigass:
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/227343072-story (http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/227343072-story)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1cR_YgXUAAFek7.jpg)
WTOP was reporting why the toll was $30 at the time Thursday afternoon and the reason was for something wholly unnecessary. The other time it reached $30 was for two wrecks in the lanes.
They were spreading salt which was not going to stick in the lanes the way brine will, because it was dry outside. On the regular lanes, which I took that day, the salt was already pushed to the shoulders for the most part.
Regardless of method, it should have been done during the overnight on Wednesday.
Unlike the 95 toll lanes, AFAIK there are never any VMS messages telling one that the 495 lanes are severely slow/delayed and one should consider staying out. I suppose when it reaches $30 it should be apparent there is an issue, but the 95 toll lanes give the get out message with a toll as low as $15 for the last segment which is comparable in length to the 495 lanes.
The Fox News article had a pic that shows the highest rate I am aware of - $31.
Transurban tweeted out that they're offering refunds for the salt truck fiasco.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 07, 2017, 11:32:40 AM
WTOP was reporting why the toll was $30 at the time Thursday afternoon and the reason was for something wholly unnecessary. The other time it reached $30 was for two wrecks in the lanes.
They were spreading salt which was not going to stick in the lanes the way brine will, because it was dry outside. On the regular lanes, which I took that day, the salt was already pushed to the shoulders for the most part.
Regardless of method, it should have been done during the overnight on Wednesday.
Unlike the 95 toll lanes, AFAIK there are never any VMS messages telling one that the 495 lanes are severely slow/delayed and one should consider staying out. I suppose when it reaches $30 it should be apparent there is an issue, but the 95 toll lanes give the get out message with a toll as low as $15 for the last segment which is comparable in length to the 495 lanes.
The Fox News article had a pic that shows the highest rate I am aware of - $31.
Wonder if the Transurban lanes had not been pre-treated with brine for some reason?
I assume that Transurban's sensors and the like are designed to not be damaged by salt and brine and other substances used during winter maintenance operations, but maybe not?
I have been told that Transurban uses its own maintenance contractor to do what VDOT calls "ordinary maintenance," with the notable exception of winter maintenance (plowing, sanding, salting and the like), which is done by the contractor that does Interstate maintenance for VDOT (I believe ICA (http://ica-onramp.com/projects/highways/northern-virginia-nova/) for most of Northern Virginia except the approaches to the Wilson Bridge, which are handled by a different company).
http://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/
Overall I support privately owned HOT lanes(although state owned ones are much better) but man Virginia really got a horrible deal on the I-95 Express Lanes. Glad to see the state learning and making better deals on the future I-66 ones and hopefully they'll find a loophole or something and be able to fix I-95 at the Occoquan River.
@FixVA28 has a great idea
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Z8T5J2xG7W1onakCADF8Dmc6hq8&ll=38.671128785955%2C-77.25433659999999&z=15
Why don't they pull a Florida DOT and call the new lane an "auxiliary lane" like the right lane on the Howard Frankland Bridge. :P
VDOT erred when it didn't extend the 4th lane to Prince William Pkwy as part of the 4th lane addition south from Newington. It was needed then and would've predated the HOT lanes contract.
Per Kozel's website there was trouble getting funding for the 4th lane project in the 2002-2007 6-year program, but that ROW was essentially already in hand. However, expanding the project south to PW Pkwy would have had a huge ROW cost especially in the Occoquan Rd (old VA 253) overpass area.
It is also notable that the express lanes also back up occasionally from people exiting at PW PKwy using the exit only lane that drops the HOT lanes from 3 lanes to 2. I always though that 3rd lane should extend to Dale City flyover exit.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
VDOT erred when it didn't extend the 4th lane to Prince William Pkwy as part of the 4th lane addition south from Newington. It was needed then and would've predated the HOT lanes contract.
Would that also have required that the Purple Heart Bridge over the Occoquan River be widened? Not cheap.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
Per Kozel's website there was trouble getting funding for the 4th lane project in the 2002-2007 6-year program, but that ROW was essentially already in hand. However, expanding the project south to PW Pkwy would have had a huge ROW cost especially in the Occoquan Rd (old VA 253) overpass area.
This was also about the time that the bottom fell out of the VDOT budget due to reduced driving and the refusal of the Virginia General Assembly to raise the per-gallon tax on motor fuel.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
It is also notable that the express lanes also back up occasionally from people exiting at PW PKwy using the exit only lane that drops the HOT lanes from 3 lanes to 2. I always though that 3rd lane should extend to Dale City flyover exit.
How often does that happen? Sounds like Transurban needs to raise the price for trips south of the Prince William Parkway.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2017, 01:35:38 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
VDOT erred when it didn't extend the 4th lane to Prince William Pkwy as part of the 4th lane addition south from Newington. It was needed then and would've predated the HOT lanes contract.
Would that also have required that the Purple Heart Bridge over the Occoquan River be widened? Not cheap.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
Per Kozel's website there was trouble getting funding for the 4th lane project in the 2002-2007 6-year program, but that ROW was essentially already in hand. However, expanding the project south to PW Pkwy would have had a huge ROW cost especially in the Occoquan Rd (old VA 253) overpass area.
This was also about the time that the bottom fell out of the VDOT budget due to reduced driving and the refusal of the Virginia General Assembly to raise the per-gallon tax on motor fuel.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
It is also notable that the express lanes also back up occasionally from people exiting at PW PKwy using the exit only lane that drops the HOT lanes from 3 lanes to 2. I always though that 3rd lane should extend to Dale City flyover exit.
How often does that happen? Sounds like Transurban needs to raise the price for trips south of the Prince William Parkway.
The Purple Heart Bridge was widened for the 4th lane project. The 4th lane makes it to the VA 123 interchange.
The backup at the PW Pkwy exit from the HOT lanes happens at least once a week, sometimes twice. A substantial portion of traffic exits here. The problem is whatever is happening at the other end of the ramp, which goes directly into a park and ride lot. Raising the tolls south of the PW Pkwy wouldn't change anything about this IMO.
It is dangerous on the HOT lanes because traffic is whizzing by at 65+ mph in the remaining 2 through lanes and the 3rd lane is at a stop. Some people try to dart out from a standstill back into the through lanes to presumably go to the Dale City exit instead.
FYI - The PW Pkwy exit is the next-to-last exit in the middle tolling segment, which is routinely $10 for the full segment. The last segment to Garrisonville varies widely from as little as $6 but does routinely reach $17.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 16, 2017, 01:47:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2017, 01:35:38 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
VDOT erred when it didn't extend the 4th lane to Prince William Pkwy as part of the 4th lane addition south from Newington. It was needed then and would've predated the HOT lanes contract.
Would that also have required that the Purple Heart Bridge over the Occoquan River be widened? Not cheap.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
Per Kozel's website there was trouble getting funding for the 4th lane project in the 2002-2007 6-year program, but that ROW was essentially already in hand. However, expanding the project south to PW Pkwy would have had a huge ROW cost especially in the Occoquan Rd (old VA 253) overpass area.
This was also about the time that the bottom fell out of the VDOT budget due to reduced driving and the refusal of the Virginia General Assembly to raise the per-gallon tax on motor fuel.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
It is also notable that the express lanes also back up occasionally from people exiting at PW PKwy using the exit only lane that drops the HOT lanes from 3 lanes to 2. I always though that 3rd lane should extend to Dale City flyover exit.
How often does that happen? Sounds like Transurban needs to raise the price for trips south of the Prince William Parkway.
The Purple Heart Bridge was widened for the 4th lane project. The 4th lane makes it to the VA 123 interchange.
Right you are. I had mixed VA-123 (Gordon Boulevard) and VA-294 (Prince William Parkway) in my mind for some reason. I always thought there was little room to widen I-95 between VA-123 and VA-294 (especially southbound), but a look at Google Maps appears to indicate that vacant land is there, though adding another lane southbound might be expensive (regardless of who pays for it).
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 16, 2017, 01:47:04 PM
The backup at the PW Pkwy exit from the HOT lanes happens at least once a week, sometimes twice. A substantial portion of traffic exits here. The problem is whatever is happening at the other end of the ramp, which goes directly into a park and ride lot. Raising the tolls south of the PW Pkwy wouldn't change anything about this IMO.
Yeah, a lot of car-pool traffic enters northbound and exits southbound at this point. I can recall the days before the HOV lanes were extended south from Springfield, there were HOV-only ramps to serve what was then signed as the "Horner Road Commuter Lot," and the lot has grown significantly since then (lots of slug line activity here).
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 16, 2017, 01:47:04 PM
It is dangerous on the HOT lanes because traffic is whizzing by at 65+ mph in the remaining 2 through lanes and the 3rd lane is at a stop. Some people try to dart out from a standstill back into the through lanes to presumably go to the Dale City exit instead.
Agreed. Wonder if these are the same drivers that illegally used the crossovers south of VA-784 to get from the conventional lanes to the (then) HOV lanes before Transurban took over?
Regardless, I think Transurban has an obligation to deal with this problem.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 16, 2017, 01:47:04 PM
FYI - The PW Pkwy exit is the next-to-last exit in the middle tolling segment, which is routinely $10 for the full segment. The last segment to Garrisonville varies widely from as little as $6 but does routinely reach $17.
Wonder if that $17 will come down some when the lanes are extended further south? Even at the lower price, Transurban should be making even more money after the extension.
WTOP reports the CTB will vote this morning on extending the I-95 HO/T lanes ten miles south to Route 17 at Falmouth:
http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2017/01/vote-set-advance-10-mile-95-express-lane-lane-extension-toll-lane-changes-works/
Recent Developments Concerning the I-95/I-395 HOT Lanes Extensions
On Tuesday Governor McAuliffe approved a $500 million deal with Transurban to extend the I-395 express lanes 8 miles north from Edsall Rd to the D.C line
http://www.equipmentworld.com/virginia-accepts-proposal-for-500-million-8-mile-extension-of-i-395-express-lanes/
Improvements Include:
-Adding a third reversible lane from Edsall Road to just south of Eads Street near the Pentagon;
-Improving the Eads Street interchange and transit and carpool access at the Pentagon;
-Adding a fourth regular southbound lane on I-395 between Duke Street and Edsall Road;
-Rehabilitating five bridges over I-395; and
-New sound walls to protect neighboring communities.
On the opposite end of the I-95/I-395 HOT lanes, there are upcoming infomation meetings regarding the recently CTB approved plans to extend the I-95 express lanes 10 miles south from Garrisonville Rd to US-17 near Fredricksburg.
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/fredericksburg/meetings-set-for-proposed-express-lanes-extension/article_543f76c5-ceed-5e71-bb09-f2a0fb1c53b2.html
I also found an interesting idea by Fix VA-28 that would have this southern extension be 4 lanes(2 lanes in each direction) instead of just 2 reversible lanes.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Gx6a9gUUK9uCrUznPebUYMPfK0E&ll=38.43402365365768%2C-77.42869960000002&z=11
This idea makes sense because of how long it would take to switch the express lanes from one direction to the other when they stretch around 50 miles(D.C to Fredericksburg) or possibly even further should they be extended again.
Fixed typos due to the $500 million just being written as $500. -Mark
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 04, 2017, 08:51:36 PM
I also found an interesting idea by Fix VA-28 that would have this southern extension be 4 lanes(2 lanes in each direction) instead of just 2 reversible lanes.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Gx6a9gUUK9uCrUznPebUYMPfK0E&ll=38.43402365365768%2C-77.42869960000002&z=11
This idea makes sense because of how long it would take to switch the express lanes from one direction to the other when they stretch around 50 miles(D.C to Fredericksburg) or possibly even further should they be extended again.
Is there room for that without having to do major construction work on the conventional (unmanaged and "free") roadways? The median of I-95 gets a fair amount narrower between VA-8900 (Exit 136, Centreport Parkway) and VA-630 (Exit 140, Courthouse Road at Stafford), in particular at the bridge that carries VA-628 (American Legion Road) over I-95.
As for reversing the lanes, yes, that takes some time, especially when switching from northbound (usually AM) operation to southbound (usually PM) operation in the middle of most weekdays. The opposite reversal from southbound to northbound is usually done late at night (except on Saturdays) and is usually not as much of an issue.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 05, 2017, 09:28:07 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 04, 2017, 08:51:36 PM
I also found an interesting idea by Fix VA-28 that would have this southern extension be 4 lanes(2 lanes in each direction) instead of just 2 reversible lanes.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Gx6a9gUUK9uCrUznPebUYMPfK0E&ll=38.43402365365768%2C-77.42869960000002&z=11
This idea makes sense because of how long it would take to switch the express lanes from one direction to the other when they stretch around 50 miles(D.C to Fredericksburg) or possibly even further should they be extended again.
Is there room for that without having to do major construction work on the conventional (unmanaged and "free") roadways? The median of I-95 gets a fair amount narrower between VA-8900 (Exit 136, Centreport Parkway) and VA-630 (Exit 140, Courthouse Road at Stafford), in particular at the bridge that carries VA-628 (American Legion Road) over I-95.
That is correct. Downsides to this idea include a lack of median space on some parts of I-95, requiring additional major construction work to expand the median, which would certainly effect the the regular lanes. The public would probably not be to thrilled about this as it would cause even more closures and delays on arguably the worst part of I-95 in the state. There will also likely be an extremely high cost to this project. Not sure yet if this extension will be financed by the state or private sector(Transburban).
WTOP Radio: Temporary I-395 HOV lane closures start this week (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2017/03/temporary-395-hov-lane-closures-start-week/)
QuoteWork crews are scheduled to begin preparations this week for summer construction of the Interstate 395 Express Lanes. Preliminary work March 8-12, overlapping into the early hours of March 13, will temporarily close the high-occupancy vehicle lanes.
QuoteThe crews will be surveying and conducting other work starting 8 p.m. Wednesday, March 8.
QuoteTo accommodate the activity, the HOV lanes will be closed overnight; Virginia Department of Transportation says the lanes will reopen for morning rush hour. The work will continue into the weekend, including Sunday morning, and wrap up for the start of next Monday morning's rush hour.
WTOP Radio: Northern Va. toll lanes to move forward (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/northern-va-toll-lanes-to-move-forward/)
QuoteToll lanes on Interstate 395 are set to take another step forward next week, when a state transportation panel is expected to approve a $45 million loan for the project.
QuoteThe Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank Advisory Panel will recommend Tuesday that the Commonwealth Transportation Board approve the loan to Transurban, the operator of the existing 95 and 495 Express Lanes.
QuoteThe loan would be repaid within 30 years of the end of construction through toll payments, beginning with interest payments in June 2020 and principal payments in December 2024.
Fredericksburg.com (The Free Lance-Star): Will express lanes ever reach into Spotsylvania? (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/will-express-lanes-ever-reach-into-spotsylvania/article_5d12635a-3a46-5ece-8fa0-3ff6d2d2c895.html)
QuoteWith last week's revelation that a new design concept would build lanes for the southbound Rappahannock River crossing project in the median of Interstate 95, some wondered what happened to the original plan to extend the express lanes to the Massaponax area.
QuoteIt appears that any plan to stretch the electronically toll lanes (which run in the median) to Massaponax died some time ago, based on financial reasons. The crossing project's new plans seemed to toss more dirt onto the southern extension's grave.
QuoteBut that doesn't mean the express lane extension couldn't be revived.
QuoteThe crossing project's new plan to build three lanes in the I—95 median between U.S. 17 and State Route 3 "doesn't prevent the express lanes from going further south," said Paul Agnello, administrator of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. "I think it's still very possible."
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 22, 2017, 11:14:56 AM
Fredericksburg.com (The Free Lance-Star): Will express lanes ever reach into Spotsylvania? (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/will-express-lanes-ever-reach-into-spotsylvania/article_5d12635a-3a46-5ece-8fa0-3ff6d2d2c895.html)
QuoteWith last week's revelation that a new design concept would build lanes for the southbound Rappahannock River crossing project in the median of Interstate 95, some wondered what happened to the original plan to extend the express lanes to the Massaponax area.
QuoteIt appears that any plan to stretch the electronically toll lanes (which run in the median) to Massaponax died some time ago, based on financial reasons. The crossing project's new plans seemed to toss more dirt onto the southern extension's grave.
QuoteBut that doesn't mean the express lane extension couldn't be revived.
QuoteThe crossing project's new plan to build three lanes in the I—95 median between U.S. 17 and State Route 3 "doesn't prevent the express lanes from going further south," said Paul Agnello, administrator of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. "I think it's still very possible."
The extension to Massaponax would be nice, but at about $50 million per mile would cost about $1.0 billion to construct.
If tolled at the same rate as the existing I-95 HOT lanes, that would be about 30 cents per mile in low traffic periods, about 50 cents per mile in medium traffic periods, and about a dollar per mile in peak traffic periods.
That would be rather pricey, but there are enough ramps that there would be at least 4 independent segments that you could choose to use or not use.
I use the I-95 and I-495 HOT lanes on my occasional trips (about 3 or 4 per year) thru the area, and I have paid peak hour tolls anywhere from $18 to $27 for the combined trip, and IMHO the benefits are well worth it, have done it at the height of the morning rush hour numerous times.
Not sure what I would do if a daily commuter!
I think the HOT lanes are a great concept, but what happens when traffic steadily grows over the next 10 years to where it takes $50 or $60 for my trip, in order to price the usage to a level where traffic stays free flowing?
The extra cost to extend the lanes is only $350M as they are already slated to come down to US 17 Falmouth with construction starting in a couple years.
If tied in correctly, the Rappahannock Project lanes below Falmouth would provide the same sort of function as if the HOT lanes were being extended to VA 3.
I am a daily user of the toll lanes and find them to be worthwhile. I do not have to use all segments everyday in both directions so that helps keep toll totals down.
It would be great is the express lanes could be extended further south. That whole area where they would have been was a glorified parking lot when I was driving back from the Beckley meet.
If I remember right, the cost to build that section was to have been offset by the tolls collected in Arlington.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 22, 2017, 12:47:51 PM
The extra cost to extend the lanes is only $350M as they are already slated to come down to US 17 Falmouth with construction starting in a couple years.
That is 10 miles extension. To south of US-17 at Massaponax is another 8 miles including a river bridge; maybe another $350 million?
Quote
If tied in correctly, the Rappahannock Project lanes below Falmouth would provide the same sort of function as if the HOT lanes were being extended to VA 3.
But wouldn't all lanes be general purpose between US-17 Falmouth and VA-3?
Quote
I am a daily user of the toll lanes and find them to be worthwhile. I do not have to use all segments everyday in both directions so that helps keep toll totals down.
That is good to hear!
I use the Beltway lanes regularly, though less frequently since SafeTrack ended at our end of the Blue Line. It's well worth it, even on a rainy day like May 12 when we paid $20.30 from I-66 to Springfield. In general, the higher the toll is, the more likely the lanes are to be worth it–in my unscientific observation, the variable tolling seems to have the desired effect of pricing out some people, as we usually find ourselves doing 60 to 70 mph regardless of the price. When we go that way, we're home from downtown–or really from the bridge–in half an hour, versus an hour via I-395 or the streets at rush hour. (I say "from the bridge" to recognize that the traffic getting out of the city is a complete crapshoot.)
Now, if it were $20 every day I might find a different route even if it took longer! More typically it's around $11 at 6:00 PM.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 01:41:03 PM
But wouldn't all lanes be general purpose between US-17 Falmouth and VA-3?
Yes but if the HOT lanes end in a way where one can go from them directly to the C/D lanes for US 17 and VA 3, this (from I-95's mainline point of view) would be same as if the HOT lanes made it separately to VA 3. Especially since it would then also be possible to go from HOT lanes to C/D lanes to south of VA 3 before rejoining I-95...
If the HOT lanes end so that everyone has to get onto mainline I-95 before getting into the C/D lanes, then this adds traffic to mainline 95 that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
On the beltway if the toll gets to about $25 that usually means there is a problem in the HOT lanes...
On I-95 SB they are pretty good about letting drivers know that the HOT lanes are backed up from their Garrisonville endpoint and for me the time is about the same to get back onto mainline 95 at Dumfries but at a savings of $10-15. This is true because the HOT lanes become slower than mainline when they are backed up more than a mile or so.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 22, 2017, 03:29:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 01:41:03 PM
But wouldn't all lanes be general purpose between US-17 Falmouth and VA-3?
Yes but if the HOT lanes end in a way where one can go from them directly to the C/D lanes for US 17 and VA 3, this (from I-95's mainline point of view) would be same as if the HOT lanes made it separately to VA 3. Especially since it would then also be possible to go from HOT lanes to C/D lanes to south of VA 3 before rejoining I-95...
If the HOT lanes end so that everyone has to get onto mainline I-95 before getting into the C/D lanes, then this adds traffic to mainline 95 that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
That is the plan, but the C-D roadway would be general purpose and could still become congested, although there will be 5 directional lanes between US-17 and VA-3 instead of the current 3 lanes.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/i-95_express_lanes_fredericksburg_extension.asp
I-95 Express Lanes Fredericksburg Extension
"This project would extend I-95 Express Lanes approximately 10 miles south of Route 610 (Garrisonville Road) in Stafford County to the vicinity of Route 17 (I-95 Exit 133)."
"The facility is proposed to connect to the I-95 Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project, and if funded in the future, the I-95 Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project."
Quote
On the beltway if the toll gets to about $25 that usually means there is a problem in the HOT lanes...
On I-95 SB they are pretty good about letting drivers know that the HOT lanes are backed up from their Garrisonville endpoint and for me the time is about the same to get back onto mainline 95 at Dumfries but at a savings of $10-15. This is true because the HOT lanes become slower than mainline when they are backed up more than a mile or so.
One time approaching VA-234 while SB I saw a toll of something like $25, and thought "that must be an error", so I did not exit the HOT lanes there, and met up with a huge traffic jam at the end. Big mistake! I should have taken the clue and exited to the general purpose lanes near VA-234, they would have been faster.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 08:40:46 PM
One time approaching VA-234 while SB I saw a toll of something like $25, and thought "that must be an error", so I did not exit the HOT lanes there, and met up with a huge traffic jam at the end. Big mistake! I should have taken the clue and exited to the general purpose lanes near VA-234, they would have been faster.
About the highest toll I've seen on the last segment of 95 that had little to no queue at the Garrisonville flyover was around $18.
The illusion is that if the HOT lanes are wide open down only 4 more miles from the Dumfries exit to the forming queue (this happens only once in a while or on holiday Thurs and Fri) and 95 mainline is backed up the entire 9 miles, it is faster to take the mainline.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 08:40:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 22, 2017, 03:29:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 01:41:03 PM
But wouldn't all lanes be general purpose between US-17 Falmouth and VA-3?
Yes but if the HOT lanes end in a way where one can go from them directly to the C/D lanes for US 17 and VA 3, this (from I-95's mainline point of view) would be same as if the HOT lanes made it separately to VA 3. Especially since it would then also be possible to go from HOT lanes to C/D lanes to south of VA 3 before rejoining I-95...
If the HOT lanes end so that everyone has to get onto mainline I-95 before getting into the C/D lanes, then this adds traffic to mainline 95 that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
That is the plan, but the C-D roadway would be general purpose and could still become congested, although there will be 5 directional lanes between US-17 and VA-3 instead of the current 3 lanes.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/i-95_express_lanes_fredericksburg_extension.asp
I-95 Express Lanes Fredericksburg Extension
I posted this earlier on the General VA forum, but now it may be more relevant here
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/new-concept-for-rappahannock-river-crossing-project-on-interstate/article_78f3edd0-b7d4-5004-861a-e0afd5ba9c4c.html
The good news is that instead of building new CD lanes outside of the I-95 regular lanes, a new 3 lane I-95 south will be built within the existing I-95 median. This would increase the current 3 southbound lanes from US-17 to VA-3 to 6 southbound lanes, unlike the original design which increases it to only 5 southbound lanes. Unfortunately I have yet to see a graphic of what this would look like.
I'm actually pretty excited to see how VDOT plans to connect the future terminus of the I-95 HOT lanes Fredricksburg Extension to the Rappahannock River Crossing Project. Hopefully its a very good design because if done correctly, then extending the HOT lanes further south into Spotsylvaina might not be needed for while. On the other hand I think it is extremly important for the CTB to somehow find funding for the currently not funded Northernbound Rappahannock Crossing Project as it is vital for this whole thing to be fully successful.
Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2017, 01:32:04 PM
If I remember right, the cost to build that section was to have been offset by the tolls collected in Arlington.
The original plans had the managed lanes running up I-395 all the way to the last access/egress point before the Potomac River and D.C.
A member of the Arlington County Board (I think this is the only county legislative body in the Commonwealth that does not style itself as a "board of supervisors" or "board of county supervisors") was virulently opposed to the project, and got his fellow board members to agree to try and stop it in federal court. That effectively truncated the managed lanes at the south end, even though that objecting member left the Arlington County Board several years ago.
So now those lanes crossing the City of Alexandria and running into Arlington County will happen as HOV/Toll lanes, though at the south end, they are not going to run all the way to Massaponax, at least not now.
Does anyone know if there is a Transurban policy not to go after people for a certain minimal unpaid toll? Ms1995hoo got a new car over Memorial Day weekend and I immediately added it to our E-ZPass account, but the adhesive tapes (plastic Velcro) didn't come until Saturday. Last Friday the traffic was bad coming home from work, so I went ahead and used the I-95 lanes from Turkeycock to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway and registered the plate number afterwards via ExpressLanes.com to be e-mailed a toll invoice. They've never sent an invoice and have not charged our E-ZPass account (Sunday's two trips on the Beltway, in the same car but with a transponder, posted last night). Do you think I need to be concerned about it? I checked all my spam folders and the like and found nothing, and I can no longer search for a trip online because you can only do that within five days (which I did do and a trip never posted).
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 09, 2017, 09:39:52 AM
Does anyone know if there is a Transurban policy not to go after people for a certain minimal unpaid toll? Ms1995hoo got a new car over Memorial Day weekend and I immediately added it to our E-ZPass account, but the adhesive tapes (plastic Velcro) didn't come until Saturday. Last Friday the traffic was bad coming home from work, so I went ahead and used the I-95 lanes from Turkeycock to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway and registered the plate number afterwards via ExpressLanes.com to be e-mailed a toll invoice. They've never sent an invoice and have not charged our E-ZPass account (Sunday's two trips on the Beltway, in the same car but with a transponder, posted last night). Do you think I need to be concerned about it? I checked all my spam folders and the like and found nothing, and I can no longer search for a trip online because you can only do that within five days (which I did do and a trip never posted).
I would be proactive and check with Transurban if I was you. There's a "Missed a toll" button on this (https://www.expresslanes.com/) Web site (I think it covers the 95Express and 495Express facilities).
The "Missed a Toll" button is what I used last Friday night right after getting home. You put in your plate number, the relevant date(s), and an e-mail address and they're supposed to e-mail you when your trip is up for billing. I got a confirmation that I'd done all that and then never got an e-mail billing us.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 09, 2017, 11:15:09 AM
The "Missed a Toll" button is what I used last Friday night right after getting home. You put in your plate number, the relevant date(s), and an e-mail address and they're supposed to e-mail you when your trip is up for billing. I got a confirmation that I'd done all that and then never got an e-mail billing us.
I assert at that point you have done everything you could on your end.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 09, 2017, 11:18:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 09, 2017, 11:15:09 AM
The "Missed a Toll" button is what I used last Friday night right after getting home. You put in your plate number, the relevant date(s), and an e-mail address and they're supposed to e-mail you when your trip is up for billing. I got a confirmation that I'd done all that and then never got an e-mail billing us.
I assert at that point you have done everything you could on your end.
Interesting follow-up. I called them to ask about it and she said it was billed to our E-ZPass, so there's nothing to do. I checked and indeed it posted this morning (sometime after 7:30).
That's interesting news to me because it means they DO query at least the Virginia E-ZPass database before billing you–as noted above, I had added the plate number to our account and simply didn't have the transponder with us. This is good to know that they do that now, as it also eases my mind about a transponder battery going dead.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 09, 2017, 11:30:54 AM
That's interesting news to me because it means they DO query at least the Virginia E-ZPass database before billing you–as noted above, I had added the plate number to our account and simply didn't have the transponder with us. This is good to know that they do that now, as it also eases my mind about a transponder battery going dead.
My guess is that it is pretty easy for them to query some sort of consolidated database with license plate numbers from all of the states in the E-ZPass Group. In theory at least, this is why they ask for the registration plate number of your car or cars in the first place.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 09, 2017, 03:34:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 09, 2017, 11:30:54 AM
That's interesting news to me because it means they DO query at least the Virginia E-ZPass database before billing you–as noted above, I had added the plate number to our account and simply didn't have the transponder with us. This is good to know that they do that now, as it also eases my mind about a transponder battery going dead.
My guess is that it is pretty easy for them to query some sort of consolidated database with license plate numbers from all of the states in the E-ZPass Group. In theory at least, this is why they ask for the registration plate number of your car or cars in the first place.
Similar story. When the ICC first opened, there was a brief, free-trial period that I utilized to tour the road before the toll was implemented. At the time, we had one EZ-Pass transponder which was placed on my wife's car which we tended to use for our out of state trips. My car was registered to the account, but the transponder was not in my car when I drove the ICC. I figured that I did not need a transponder for a free trip. It came as a surprise to see my trip come in our EZ-Pass statement showing my trip (with a $0 toll) in a car that did not have a transponder. You are right that it is a good policy for them to keep track of trips that are made in case a battery goes down.
For the record, now we have two transponders tied to the same account so we can use either car on an EZPass facility without concern. Both vehicles are registered with EZ-Pass.
As a slight off-topic note, I wonder if the use of a grand data base would be the easiest method to achieve national interoperability between the many different toll agencies around the country. AFAIK, the different agencies use different technologies and cannot easily be interchanged in large scale, even though you hear of small scale interoperability (like TX-OK-KS). The EZ-Pass in my car will probably never work in FL, TX, or CA, but if my license plate were somehow on a registry with those states I could probably (at some point, not now) drive on their toll roads without incurring an administrative penalty.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 09, 2017, 03:34:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 09, 2017, 11:30:54 AM
That's interesting news to me because it means they DO query at least the Virginia E-ZPass database before billing you–as noted above, I had added the plate number to our account and simply didn't have the transponder with us. This is good to know that they do that now, as it also eases my mind about a transponder battery going dead.
My guess is that it is pretty easy for them to query some sort of consolidated database with license plate numbers from all of the states in the E-ZPass Group. In theory at least, this is why they ask for the registration plate number of your car or cars in the first place.
I seem to recall there was at least anecdotal evidence that early on, Transurban didn't query the database and simply sent a bill. If that is the case, I'm glad they changed it. I wonder if the various lawsuits might have factored into it.
Too bad Dr. Gridlock retired. I would have asked him if he knew. He's still on Twitter in his personal capacity and we follow each other, but it doesn't feel appropriate to ask him now. Maybe I'll ask Adam Tuss.
[
Note that the dollar amounts below may be in Australian dollars, not U.S. dollars, and one U.S. dollar is currently about $1.31 in Australia]
Fredericksburg.com (Free Lance-Star): Toll lanes bringing in the money (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/getting-there-toll-lanes-bringing-in-the-money/article_0f652e3e-67ef-5397-9d6a-48acfb1e8418.html)
QuoteThe toll prices on the express lanes might not be very popular, but those electronically tolled lanes are getting plenty of use.
QuoteTransurban, the Australian-based corporation that owns and operates the lanes, is raking in profits from its 15 toll lane operations across the globe. And the Interstate 95 and 495 express lanes are doing quite well, according to Transurban's first-quarter report.
QuoteTransurban's overall toll revenue for the first quarter checked in at just more than a half-billion dollars ($502 million to be exact).
One thing I noticed on the trip back north yesterday, the "base" price when the I-95 HOT lanes are empty and the mainline is free flowing seems to have gone up quite a bit since inception. One would think the rate would trend downwards during low traffic to induce at least some extra trips..... because some traffic makes money rather then no traffic at all!
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2017, 09:57:57 PM
One thing I noticed on the trip back north yesterday, the "base" price when the I-95 HOT lanes are empty and the mainline is free flowing seems to have gone up quite a bit since inception. One would think the rate would trend downwards during low traffic to induce at least some extra trips..... because some traffic makes money rather then no traffic at all!
I have noticed that with the I-495 lanes too.
Agreed w/ respect to the 495 ones. Usually when I drive between the northern end and I-66 (either direction), there are maybe 1 or 2 other cars in the lanes (a least as far a I can see up and down the road), so I feel I should pay the lowest rate. And yet the price can vary by 15-20 cents. One car several hundred feet in front of me is not affecting my travel.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2017, 09:57:57 PM
One thing I noticed on the trip back north yesterday, the "base" price when the I-95 HOT lanes are empty and the mainline is free flowing seems to have gone up quite a bit since inception. One would think the rate would trend downwards during low traffic to induce at least some extra trips..... because some traffic makes money rather then no traffic at all!
I spent $33 recently for a peak period trip on both facilities, I-95 NB and I-495 NB. I use them about 3 times per year.
WTOP Radio: Autonomous car tests coming to Express Lanes in Va. (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/07/autonomous-car-tests-coming-express-lanes-va/)
QuoteCutting-edge connected and autonomous cars are set to run through the 95 and 495 Express Lanes for the next three years, including while regular toll-paying drivers and carpoolers are in the lanes.
QuoteVirginia's Commonwealth Transportation Board is set to approve a three-year agreement Wednesday among the Virginia Department of Transportation, the private company that operates the 95 and 495 Express Lanes, and the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Operations Research and Development that would permit new testing to move forward.
QuoteThe focus of these tests is whether caravans of cars or trucks could speed down a highway just inches apart if the vehicles could communicate to each other about the precise speed to travel, and whether those caravans can successfully run in the same lanes as regular traffic.
Not directly related to the HOT Lanes in NOVA but were definitely influenced by their success/affect
http://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-va-officials-mulling-hot-lanes-on-i-64-on-the-peninsula-20170718-story.html
To sum it up, basically Virginia's Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne sketched a idea to create a 45-mile network of express lanes along I-64 from Jefferson Avenue in Newport News to the Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake. It appears as of now the plan is that from I-564 to I-264 the HOT lanes will be reversible, similar to the ones on I-95 and I-395. North of I-564(Up to Jefferson Avenue) and South of I-264(To Bower's Hill) it appears there will be least one HOT lane in each direction without direct exits, similar to the ones on I-85 northeast of Atlanta. If approved, this new network of HOT Lanes would be timed to open in 2024, around the same time the HRBT expansion wraps up.
Also IMO the existing HOV lanes on I-264 will also eventually be converted into HOT Lanes sometime in the future.
https://www.arlnow.com/2017/08/09/395-express-lanes-project-breaks-ground/
http://potomaclocal.com/2017/08/08/early-relief-coming-for-e-zpass-lanes-in-stafford/
Not only did the 8 mile I-395 Express Lanes northern extension project break ground, but it also appears that the southbound ramp of the 2 mile I-95 Express Lanes southern extension will opened early in October. As of now, the northbound ramp of the extension is still scheduled to be completed during the summer of 2018, but I suspect that will be opened early as well.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 18, 2017, 11:09:04 PM
Not directly related to the HOT Lanes in NOVA but were definitely influenced by their success/affect
http://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-va-officials-mulling-hot-lanes-on-i-64-on-the-peninsula-20170718-story.html
To sum it up, basically Virginia's Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne sketched a idea to create a 45-mile network of express lanes along I-64 from Jefferson Avenue in Newport News to the Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake. It appears as of now the plan is that from I-564 to I-264 the HOT lanes will be reversible, similar to the ones on I-95 and I-395. North of I-564(Up to Jefferson Avenue) and South of I-264(To Bower's Hill) it appears there will be least one HOT lane in each direction without direct exits, similar to the ones on I-85 northeast of Atlanta. If approved, this new network of HOT Lanes would be timed to open in 2024, around the same time the HRBT expansion wraps up.
What a horrible project! Spending $3.4 billion to expand the HRBT (actually I-64 from Mallory Street to I-564), would be an incredible and irresponsible waste of funds, given that it would only add one lane each way, and a 6-lane HRBT would be obsolete the day that it was completed.
Where are they going to get $3.4 billion to fund this project? Having one HOT lane each way wouldn't support more than a small fraction of the of the amount of toll revenue bonds needed.
They could extend I-564 to I-664 for $4 billion and have a whole new 4-lane bridge-tunnel which could exploit the much lower traffic volumes on I-664 in both directions, between Norfolk and Newport News, and between Norfolk and Suffolk. It would also serve as an uptown crossing of the Elizabeth River and provide more capacity beyond that of the existing two Elizabeth River tunnels. It would also complete a South Hampton Roads Beltway.
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2017, 10:33:57 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 18, 2017, 11:09:04 PM
Not directly related to the HOT Lanes in NOVA but were definitely influenced by their success/affect
http://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-va-officials-mulling-hot-lanes-on-i-64-on-the-peninsula-20170718-story.html
To sum it up, basically Virginia's Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne sketched a idea to create a 45-mile network of express lanes along I-64 from Jefferson Avenue in Newport News to the Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake. It appears as of now the plan is that from I-564 to I-264 the HOT lanes will be reversible, similar to the ones on I-95 and I-395. North of I-564(Up to Jefferson Avenue) and South of I-264(To Bower's Hill) it appears there will be least one HOT lane in each direction without direct exits, similar to the ones on I-85 northeast of Atlanta. If approved, this new network of HOT Lanes would be timed to open in 2024, around the same time the HRBT expansion wraps up.
What a horrible project! Spending $3.4 billion to expand the HRBT (actually I-64 from Mallory Street to I-564), would be an incredible and irresponsible waste of funds, given that it would only add one lane each way, and a 6-lane HRBT would be obsolete the day that it was completed.
Where are they going to get $3.4 billion to fund this project? Having one HOT lane each way wouldn't support more than a small fraction of the of the amount of toll revenue bonds needed.
They could extend I-564 to I-664 for $4 billion and have a whole new 4-lane bridge-tunnel which could exploit the much lower traffic volumes on I-664 in both directions, between Norfolk and Newport News, and between Norfolk and Suffolk. It would also serve as an uptown crossing of the Elizabeth River and provide more capacity beyond that of the existing two Elizabeth River tunnels. It would also complete a South Hampton Roads Beltway.
Definitely agree that spending 3.4 billion just to add one toll lane in each direction may not be the right answer. Kinda reminds me a little of the I-77 toll lane situation near Charlotte NC. IMO I-64 needs to be 8 lanes from I-664 to I-564 with four separate two lane tubes/bridges at the HRBT, basically like the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore. Of course also like the Fort McHenry Tunnel, all of the new I-64 HBRT would need be tolled too, since this would likely cost at least double 3.4 billion. And if people don't like paying tolls? Then by all means they're welcome to use I-664 Monitor Merrimac Bridge/Tunnel instead.
Unfortunately I think extending I-564 to I-664 is no longer an option because it would likely require a compensation event to Elizabeth River Crossing Partners for toll revenue losses.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 16, 2017, 12:09:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2017, 10:33:57 PM
Spending $3.4 billion to expand the HRBT (actually I-64 from Mallory Street to I-564), would be an incredible and irresponsible waste of funds, given that it would only add one lane each way, and a 6-lane HRBT would be obsolete the day that it was completed.
Where are they going to get $3.4 billion to fund this project? Having one HOT lane each way wouldn't support more than a small fraction of the of the amount of toll revenue bonds needed.
They could extend I-564 to I-664 for $4 billion and have a whole new 4-lane bridge-tunnel which could exploit the much lower traffic volumes on I-664 in both directions, between Norfolk and Newport News, and between Norfolk and Suffolk. It would also serve as an uptown crossing of the Elizabeth River and provide more capacity beyond that of the existing two Elizabeth River tunnels. It would also complete a South Hampton Roads Beltway.
Definitely agree that spending 3.4 billion just to add one toll lane in each direction may not be the right answer. Kinda reminds me a little of the I-77 toll lane situation near Charlotte NC. IMO I-64 needs to be 8 lanes from I-664 to I-564 with four separate two lane tubes/bridges at the HRBT, basically like the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore. Of course also like the Fort McHenry Tunnel, all of the new I-64 HBRT would need be tolled too, since this would likely cost at least double 3.4 billion. And if people don't like paying tolls? Then by all means they're welcome to use I-664 Monitor Merrimac Bridge/Tunnel instead.
I seriously doubt that any toll on the HRBT could support $3.4 billion in toll revenue bonds.
Eight lanes was evaluated, the problem was the high impacts to the human and natural environment in Hampton and Norfolk from the widened approaches.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 16, 2017, 12:09:52 AM
Unfortunately I think extending I-564 to I-664 is no longer an option because it would likely require a compensation event to Elizabeth River Crossing Partners for toll revenue losses.
Possibly, but if it was tolled at the right level there may be no traffic impact to the Elizabeth River tunnels.
Washington Post: An additional 2 miles of Interstate 95 HOT lanes will open Oct. 31 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/10/23/another-2-miles-of-interstate-95-hot-lanes-will-open-oct-31/)
QuoteThe high-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes in the Interstate 95 corridor in Northern Virginia will add an additional two miles next week.
QuoteThe expansion in Stafford County is a small step toward bringing the Express Lanes farther south to Fredericksburg. Plans are underway to add an additional 10 miles of HOT lanes by 2022.
QuoteThe new northbound and southbound ramps will open to traffic ahead of schedule on Oct. 31, Virginia transportation officials said. The $50 million project adds entrance and exit ramps south of Exit 143 at Garrisonville Road. About 146,000 vehicles travel on I-95 near Garrisonville Road each day.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 23, 2017, 04:11:47 PM
QuoteThe new northbound and southbound ramps will open to traffic ahead of schedule on Oct. 31, Virginia transportation officials said. The $50 million project adds entrance and exit ramps south of Exit 143 at Garrisonville Road. About 146,000 vehicles travel on I-95 near Garrisonville Road each day.
Excellent! Last time I was by there a few weeks ago it looked almost ready to open.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 23, 2017, 04:11:47 PM
Washington Post: An additional 2 miles of Interstate 95 HOT lanes will open Oct. 31 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/10/23/another-2-miles-of-interstate-95-hot-lanes-will-open-oct-31/)
QuoteThe high-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes in the Interstate 95 corridor in Northern Virginia will add an additional two miles next week.
QuoteThe expansion in Stafford County is a small step toward bringing the Express Lanes farther south to Fredericksburg. Plans are underway to add an additional 10 miles of HOT lanes by 2022.
QuoteThe new northbound and southbound ramps will open to traffic ahead of schedule on Oct. 31, Virginia transportation officials said. The $50 million project adds entrance and exit ramps south of Exit 143 at Garrisonville Road. About 146,000 vehicles travel on I-95 near Garrisonville Road each day.
Very nice. Now if they could get the rest done ahead of schedule I'll be very happy. :P
I had an unexpected afternoon off and used the time to go to the E-ZPass "Customer Service Center" in Woodbridge. I put that in quotation marks because it's a misleading term: It's actually a DMV office on Caton Hill Road (near the Horner Road commuter lot). I wanted to swap our E-ZPasses for E-ZPass Flex devices. Painless process, aside from having to stand on line at the check-in desk. The guy did tell me one thing that's interesting: If you use the device in "HOV Mode" to ride free on the HO/T lanes, he said prior to your next trip in HOV Mode you have to switch it to non—HOV Mode, then switch it back again (sort of like a reboot, I guess). He said if you don't do this, it won't work in HOV Mode the next time. (That won't likely be an issue for us because our HOV Mode trips will almost all be on I-66 inside the Beltway and we'll then have to flip the switch as we go down the ramp to the Beltway, meaning we would reset it each time anyway.)
But I found it interesting because I do not see anything on the Virginia E-ZPass website advising of this. I suppose I could see a practical reason for this sort of requirement if it ensured that people checked their transponder status each time, thus theoretically reducing the chances of people driving solo in HOV Mode. It struck me as a bit strange that there would be nothing on the website about it, though.
Not to mention being strange in that the highway has been open for 3 years yet no one has reported this being an issue. I'm sure not every HOV customer will remember to do this every time.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 24, 2017, 04:10:28 PM
I had an unexpected afternoon off and used the time to go to the E-ZPass "Customer Service Center" in Woodbridge. I put that in quotation marks because it's a misleading term: It's actually a DMV office on Caton Hill Road (near the Horner Road commuter lot). I wanted to swap our E-ZPasses for E-ZPass Flex devices. Painless process, aside from having to stand on line at the check-in desk. The guy did tell me one thing that's interesting: If you use the device in "HOV Mode" to ride free on the HO/T lanes, he said prior to your next trip in HOV Mode you have to switch it to non—HOV Mode, then switch it back again (sort of like a reboot, I guess). He said if you don't do this, it won't work in HOV Mode the next time. (That won't likely be an issue for us because our HOV Mode trips will almost all be on I-66 inside the Beltway and we'll then have to flip the switch as we go down the ramp to the Beltway, meaning we would reset it each time anyway.)
But I found it interesting because I do not see anything on the Virginia E-ZPass website advising of this. I suppose I could see a practical reason for this sort of requirement if it ensured that people checked their transponder status each time, thus theoretically reducing the chances of people driving solo in HOV Mode. It struck me as a bit strange that there would be nothing on the website about it, though.
I have been using the EZPass Flex for five years now on the 495 HOT Lanes, have never switched it out of HOV mode, and have never been charged a toll on those lanes (we always have 3+ in the car).
Quote from: Steve D on October 25, 2017, 08:38:23 AM
I have been using the EZPass Flex for five years now on the 495 HOT Lanes, have never switched it out of HOV mode, and have never been charged a toll on those lanes (we always have 3+ in the car).
Good to know. Thanks. I think jeffandnicole makes an excellent point–if this were actually required, surely we would have heard some kind of media report by now, especially given how many of the local media seem to want to turn every little thing about the HO/T lanes into some sort of made-up scandal.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 25, 2017, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: Steve D on October 25, 2017, 08:38:23 AM
I have been using the EZPass Flex for five years now on the 495 HOT Lanes, have never switched it out of HOV mode, and have never been charged a toll on those lanes (we always have 3+ in the car).
Good to know. Thanks. I think jeffandnicole makes an excellent point–if this were actually required, surely we would have heard some kind of media report by now, especially given how many of the local media seem to want to turn every little thing about the HO/T lanes into some sort of made-up scandal.
I wonder about that too. I become reminded of people, including my parents, who vowed to "never" use the toll lanes and, lo and behold, they found them convenient many occasions (e.g. time sensitive events such as reservations, flight from Dulles, etc.)
I wonder if the grumbling will wane as the HOT format becomes increasingly prevalent in the area.
Work is well underway on the northern extension of the 395 HOT lanes, from Edsall Rd (Turkeycock Run, specifically) to the Pentagon. This photo shows repaving work. The plan is to have three lanes instead of the present two. I think they're going to take out the eastern most shoulder and simply turn it into another reversible lane. However I supposed they could just flip everything when they change the lanes and have the shoulder always be on the left or right side of the direction of the flow.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rVZClGLBE7WyEuRy3d1CDVLgZqJuzXTrr2zoD2ZsTs2bjPUepnaQprmk7V1NWY8mBHbCha9im5aF5ppiMjkGNuNrerXLltmRqtVw-EiIldokX7AzD7gXMPlYKXyQRPy0rL8ki-KtA3GkyZkK7130ww0PYGj_wv4_-Iz8euCG8Yqx8hJyI2C6zcbq7xaRxmJRP3X1MvM10UmZshTC8QByZfdV_BO_iGAzRtPS_Ln79WeHm67wd5hayzfU3WuKExsJNQd1fmO7LQRsMr-I1lLEz7BNNVOPTH8H8VdVoXbYvoAgUxt7BGeOwnsyj31ZeJNfDbobNlBzKGYGjpi4wLRcHMyfZbmW7_EeN2T-kbOlL_hNUBj8UH0zcGWilfTF26Mk9_OGuTunqPIzig_ToHirID_juxR8hiDO9pqYCjVH47_EVJ9W0SHEYxQsvas8pIVMaMzM2byJRX9D6Nb2ERMB14d62d4X594tpEy5zzPqTHeYfLHvJd8ac4K1t0bkgO8WYHvw9vyTZ_3BjKNXsYKcriXMLxUknXn4VJT9WL3hQrqvDwsILkr3mQCEMW-oD1wcww8td94XqQdU_09MFgTut29ffKVHKOkefu7b9XGZZw=w1134-h637-no)
I was on there southbound from DC earlier this afternoon and I found they've narrowed it from VA-27 to the Shirlington exit–jersey walls on each side (no shoulders) and lanes shifted. The usual annoyance of the old lane markings still being visible in the afternoon sun glare was a factor.
^^ Your photo is showing up as a grey "Do Not Enter" symbol.
Quote from: froggie on October 26, 2017, 11:39:58 PM
^^ Your photo is showing up as a grey "Do Not Enter" symbol.
Renders fine where I am. Strange.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 26, 2017, 04:49:33 PM
I was on there southbound from DC earlier this afternoon and I found they've narrowed it from VA-27 to the Shirlington exit–jersey walls on each side (no shoulders) and lanes shifted. The usual annoyance of the old lane markings still being visible in the afternoon sun glare was a factor.
I have to wonder if someone got the idea for that from PennDOT and their
miserable "cattle chute" work zones. Shirlington Circle to VA-27 is not
that far (and fortunately it's a fairly straight section of road), but if there's a crash or a disabled vehicle, then the results get ugly in a hurry.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2017, 09:58:55 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 26, 2017, 11:39:58 PM
^^ Your photo is showing up as a grey "Do Not Enter" symbol.
Renders fine where I am. Strange.
It's weird, it displayed fine for me last night when I viewed it on my iPad, but this morning on a PC it's displaying as froggie describes. It was a photo looking north from the 34 Street/South Abingdon Street overpass above I-395 just north of the King Street interchange and it showed fresh paving.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2017, 10:01:05 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 26, 2017, 04:49:33 PM
I was on there southbound from DC earlier this afternoon and I found they've narrowed it from VA-27 to the Shirlington exit–jersey walls on each side (no shoulders) and lanes shifted. The usual annoyance of the old lane markings still being visible in the afternoon sun glare was a factor.
I have to wonder if someone got the idea for that from PennDOT and their miserable "cattle chute" work zones. Shirlington Circle to VA-27 is not that far (and fortunately it's a fairly straight section of road), but if there's a crash or a disabled vehicle, then the results get ugly in a hurry.
I have no idea. I'm sure the barriers are probably related to a combination of doing something with the barriers between the general-purpose lanes and the reversible carriageway and the need to reinforce what are now the reversible lanes' shoulders in order to restripe the road to have three lanes within the existing footprint, similar to what was done south of Turkeycock. AlexandriaVA speculated that they might have the shoulder switch sides depending on which way the lanes are pointed. I kind of doubt that will happen simply because it's not how they're doing it south of Turkeycock–I don't see much reason to think they'd operate differently on the new part (and as a practical matter I kind of wonder how they'd stripe it if they did that).
BTW, interesting side note: We were just in St. Louis two weeks ago and, as you may know, they have two express lanes on I-70 that are in theory similar to I-395's express lanes in that they're designed to be a reversible carriageway (with no exits) designed to provide thru traffic to and from downtown with a bypass of the slower general-purpose lanes. In practice they differ from I-395 because they no longer reverse the direction; instead, they always run towards downtown. Anyway, I'm sure you've noticed on I-395 that both edge markings are white, presumably because the yellow line is supposed to denote the left shoulder and in a reversible lane the left side will vary depending on which way the lanes are pointing. On I-70 in St. Louis, both edge markings are yellow. I noticed it immediately. Not really a big deal, of course, just something I found interesting (I do recall from driver's ed way back when the instructor saying, "If the yellow line is ever to your right, you're on the wrong side of the road").
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2017, 10:01:05 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 26, 2017, 04:49:33 PM
I was on there southbound from DC earlier this afternoon and I found they've narrowed it from VA-27 to the Shirlington exit–jersey walls on each side (no shoulders) and lanes shifted. The usual annoyance of the old lane markings still being visible in the afternoon sun glare was a factor.
I have to wonder if someone got the idea for that from PennDOT and their miserable "cattle chute" work zones. Shirlington Circle to VA-27 is not that far (and fortunately it's a fairly straight section of road), but if there's a crash or a disabled vehicle, then the results get ugly in a hurry.
Closed carriageway...what else do you want them to do? 66 during rush hour doesn't have a shoulder. Sometimes just gotta work with the hand you're dealt.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 27, 2017, 10:03:52 AM
Closed carriageway...what else do you want them to do? 66 during rush hour doesn't have a shoulder. Sometimes just gotta work with the hand you're dealt.
Do the work on one side at a time. I have no issue with Transurban's effort to add a third lane, and I realize that one side at a time will take longer, but cattle chute work zones should be a last resort, not used on nearly every project (like PennDOT and PTC do).
Last ones I have recently experienced in Penn's Woods were on I-81 around Ravine (roughly Exit 104 to Exit 100) - really terrible one-lane-each way because of steep grades and high percentage of truck traffic; and a very long cattle chute on I-476 (N.E. Extension Pennsylvania Turnpike) between Exits 31 (PA-63, Lansdale) and 44 (PA-664, Quakertown).
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 27, 2017, 10:03:52 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2017, 10:01:05 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 26, 2017, 04:49:33 PM
I was on there southbound from DC earlier this afternoon and I found they've narrowed it from VA-27 to the Shirlington exit–jersey walls on each side (no shoulders) and lanes shifted. The usual annoyance of the old lane markings still being visible in the afternoon sun glare was a factor.
I have to wonder if someone got the idea for that from PennDOT and their miserable "cattle chute" work zones. Shirlington Circle to VA-27 is not that far (and fortunately it's a fairly straight section of road), but if there's a crash or a disabled vehicle, then the results get ugly in a hurry.
Closed carriageway...what else do you want them to do? 66 during rush hour doesn't have a shoulder. Sometimes just gotta work with the hand you're dealt.
Nowadays it seems more often than not I-66 doesn't have a shoulder outside rush hour either between the Beltway and Fair Oaks. The green arrows seem to be on more often than not, including on weekends.
Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2017, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 23, 2017, 04:11:47 PM
QuoteThe new northbound and southbound ramps will open to traffic ahead of schedule on Oct. 31, Virginia transportation officials said. The $50 million project adds entrance and exit ramps south of Exit 143 at Garrisonville Road. About 146,000 vehicles travel on I-95 near Garrisonville Road each day.
Excellent! Last time I was by there a few weeks ago it looked almost ready to open.
So with a sample size of 1, here is what the extension opening was like:
yesterday afternoon, both the toll lanes and the mainline were 65 mph+ through the entirety of the Garrisonville area. No issues merging back onto mainline 95 from the left.
And the toll was only $4.90 at 6 pm for the last segment from Dale City to the end. It has rarely been below $8 during the afternoon rush.
this morning, there was no backup approaching Garrisonville (typical 2-3 mile crawl at 5 a.m. before). It appeared that the mainline through Exit 143 was free flowing though maybe not at 65 mph.
Oddly, most of the extension is only paved as 1 lane plus shoulder, so when they construct the extension to Fredericksburg relatively soon, they will have to go back and add a lane of pavement to today's extension. Not sure why they did that, knowing that the Fredericksburg extension was quite likely.
Since the 'average speed' had to be at 45 mph or greater, the jam at the end was probably often the reason why the price increased. If you traveled 65 mph thru the entire corridor but got jammed up at the very end for a few minutes, that reduced the average speed to 45 or below.
Hopefully, the new lane and merge area will keep prices down, which will also allow more people to pay a more reasonable toll, making the drive easier on both the tolled and free lanes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 01, 2017, 08:20:35 AM
Since the 'average speed' had to be at 45 mph or greater, the jam at the end was probably often the reason why the price increased. If you traveled 65 mph thru the entire corridor but got jammed up at the very end for a few minutes, that reduced the average speed to 45 or below.
Whatever algorithm they use cannot be discerned visually on that segment. I have seen it wide open at $18 and a 4-mile backup at the end with it at $18.
The beltway lanes are more consistent with this IMO. It is wide open at anything under $15, moving but crowded up to about $20 and anything over that means traffic is coming to a crawl somewhere in the toll lanes (usually from I-66 overpass to Gallows Rd exit)
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 01, 2017, 09:00:30 AM
The beltway lanes are more consistent with this IMO. It is wide open at anything under $15, moving but crowded up to about $20 and anything over that means traffic is coming to a crawl somewhere in the toll lanes (usually from I-66 overpass to Gallows Rd exit)
That's interesting. I assumed that the maximum load point on the Outer Loop side (southbound) would be between the ramps from VA-7 and I-66, not south of I-66.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 01, 2017, 11:26:19 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 01, 2017, 09:00:30 AM
The beltway lanes are more consistent with this IMO. It is wide open at anything under $15, moving but crowded up to about $20 and anything over that means traffic is coming to a crawl somewhere in the toll lanes (usually from I-66 overpass to Gallows Rd exit)
That's interesting. I assumed that the maximum load point on the Outer Loop side (southbound) would be between the ramps from VA-7 and I-66, not south of I-66.
That area is sometimes a little slower too but the ramp to Gallows Rd backs up to nearly into the toll lanes, so traffic is slower. This is also the area where troopers hang out and slow downs result from their presence and/or activity.
Stopped by the Abingdon St. bridge over 395 this afternoon. Not sure what to make of the markings yet.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/nbbJdVfd9iaARk8MdPswtFhlxxPXXJ2H2lAp3xcrRApTt0pV7D0cS-vME4kq6mKk-OXXY6peM__YuUfcqhDjqW3qY6v2rMQKLt0O9msQ_D9FUjRHthKwTCZ8KDfyOCbts4m3rjMfRy1uwxJwWEwW0jZUh7f1QVg_ISwe_Ary6Z3KF3l3LUp18zmwTrdhnkjWNnBWGcL3PMUsEB7InWVsrDalkoMr9B6za-5wY3BOWv1Ode9nOM-Jn3-iAfbf7mV7jXdspWqYUHqtvwX-cCmublwutESh07ybZWqSScbYjeRYoAvl7301kxvcZicZs4GEIMWZnSJCDF9Jy9WqFbOkWogCitktQqW3MFEKBo5LZqkDs1ndzrUT-IGYN_PC_tL4sroV2k-TYfKyz5NN7pmoflAamJiMxqIjFU8-R60h-GebJ32tUfLiVMwEhA_oWPlGjqF5cG9Ty-VqCYzXM81k4pJZZXhM6ZlVNmch6Pf_wJ2I8xk9Eodd4ZCbG_609q1mLx5QBByQoIsX15Gd2eBN_dItjEEto5lByWrERUSz1Juz2V-_QL6o-cURBFWOvYGtOzOfz3ii5xAd-nT7gCLObuJXtkGxu-j_Lr15v7IB6g=w1134-h637-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/sBFvPZ6oNu6516FRlNS8o2JncArt6goM1-kwN-KmaPtzsbQMw6d7KmO31jVCKk9QXOMGXxVv_mgn1T9MBryQVpaGXPes43lsgPfk7ZSzLeTKAd_s9ONZ-ycW4YDBkdcPLcR3pNuHQ5rKYpvG-1IlyrByyNfexDZw0OLRYelxINnUfkWOo6DCMRJq2v1Xn_Xp-H81L1Csm9UcfSjYCf3H3WzY4-jpiFrHs4oCJ5cnNLSDhgOh2p7HNYyR0A2uaufo2HIzfjahsB-BAkcvtYhzcJSFPvPUZAllQ73h1iXrp8ndDYuV5gRdMClum_H4AWhEaGTgA_x6sDN4qXIXEe4RAKsbBzQ8Zw2Dg9kqFS0yhJRiKw0moSxy-RUEkAExHfcx2EMU1Qd4hiacorpecsojciLNCYjKKHXPAH0GHMXswwgeoTYn-muc5cytNr03c_uYj7jik_jDe-9al-ZsUmwbNpL_IlseiYYmaylGwYQBTwhX6E3nzBHBq8tVJOuUzP6C34XVxIKxRnEhs2Vts6KJzRHjUPGkaTyKZzaibTd56WhZtwq4NdzbGzxSf29UVnwhOEH2WeiFoGlmmd4vIwgx6gLGNhamu5_d5RYvKStSLw=w1134-h637-no)
I have the day off and I drove Ms1995hoo to work via the I-395 HOV lanes since the Metro is on a reduced schedule. The work zone now extends all the way down to Turkeycock, although the "cattle chute" doesn't (yet, anyway). There are orange barrels all the way down and it appears likely they'll probably put up more jersey barriers. Main annoyance in my view is the uneven pavement and the ruts left by old lane markings.
Not sure if this has been posted.
https://www.395expresslanes.com/pdfs/brochure.pdf
I guess it resolves the one question concerning lane configuration.
QuoteFull shoulder will offer space for disabled vehicles with similar configuration as 95 Express Lanes
I guess three lanes, with a shoulder on the east side of the HOT carriageway.
Also, wonder if they'll do something to "link" the I-66 HOT lanes and I-395 HOT lanes via VA-110.
The brochure also confirms what I had suspected–they're replacing the long-time metal barriers between carriageways with concrete.
I find the Eads Street thing to be interesting. Right now, the portions of the "HOV lanes" between the north end of the reversible carriageway and the lanes' end in DC (north of roughly this point (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Henry+G.+Shirley+Memorial+Hwy,+Arlington,+VA+22202/@38.8668842,-77.0597757,220m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b7b6dfcc8ca9f3:0xfcdeca95fb42b42e!8m2!3d38.8668832!4d-77.0592285) across the river into DC) are open 24/7. If you're leaving DC, you can go over the "HOV bridge" and exit back into the general-purpose lanes even if the reversible lanes are pointed northbound. A fair number of people do precisely that to avoid the general-purpose lanes as they pass the exits for Crystal City and Route 110 because there's so much weaving, lane-changing, and slow traffic through there (certainly it's not a great area to drive if you're not familiar with the road, and the large numbers of signs do not help unfamiliar motorists).
My reading of the brochure indicates there will be some kind of change to the operations in that area because it says both Eads Street ramps (this is the exit that is currently marked simply as "Pentagon," to the left of the camera location in this Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8663225,-77.0580233,3a,75y,90.25h,81.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYYa9QpMvKege7Ek3QkIG7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) are to be made reversible. That means the current outbound/southbound "HOV carriageway" will have to become reversible as far north as the Eads Street interchange, unless the reconfiguration is somehow intended to provide two ramps from the existing inbound/northbound carriageway (which I doubt). I note the map in the brochure doesn't show the existing right-side slip ramp back to the general-purpose lanes located just to the south/west of the Eads Street interchange, so I wonder whether they plan to remove it.
BTW, I put "HOV lanes" and "HOV carriageway" in quotation marks because they don't actually carry an HOV restriction in that particular location as currently operated, although from a practical standpoint the northbound Eads Street off-ramp is HOV-restricted in the mornings because you can't get to it except via the HOV lanes. But if you're going outbound through there, you can go as far as the slip ramp just before the reversible lanes even if you're not an HOV as long as you then exit back to the general-purpose lanes.
It's almost as if they're setting things up for a HOT extension across the 14th St. Bridge.... :sombrero:
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2017, 12:01:53 PM
It's almost as if they're setting things up for a HOT extension across the 14th St. Bridge.... :sombrero:
Recall a few years ago DC officials had talked about the notion of having HO/T lanes running up I-295 and then across the Southeast—Southwest Freeway.....
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2017, 12:21:22 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2017, 12:01:53 PM
It's almost as if they're setting things up for a HOT extension across the 14th St. Bridge.... :sombrero:
Recall a few years ago DC officials had talked about the notion of having HO/T lanes running up I-295 and then across the Southeast—Southwest Freeway.....
Correct, the article was published back in 2014
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/plans-for-hot-lanes-on-14th-street-bridge-and-dc-freeways-still-just-warming-up/2014/04/19/d221f304-c4d3-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_story.html?utm_term=.74f7ab9cdbb1
QuoteThe proposal for I-295 involves building two new reversible lanes in the middle of the interstate. The study suggests that the District government could develop this portion, like the Southeast-Southwest Freeway portion, through a public-private partnership.
Not exactly sure if the study calls for reversible HOT lanes on the section of the Southeast-Southwest Freeway between where they currently end(right after the US-1 exit) and the I-295/D.C-295 interchange. No idea how any more lanes(reversible or not) would fit in that section, but after hearing Maryland's ambitious plans for adding four HOT lanes on the Capital Beltway, especially on the tight section between I-270 and I-95, I guess anything is possible.
Saturday night we drove to DC for a Caps game and took the I-395 HOV on the way in. The "cattle chute" now runs pretty much the entire way from Turkeycock to the VA-27 ramp, with the exception of going down the hill from Landmark towards Seminary Road–at that point, there is not (yet) a concrete barrier on the side adjacent to the southbound general-purpose lanes.
I was quite surprised the speed limit is still 65 in there. VDOT usually reduces it in work zones. I was doing 70 and the missus felt it was too fast given the narrow configuration.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 20, 2017, 07:46:07 AM
I was quite surprised the speed limit is still 65 in there. VDOT usually reduces it in work zones. I was doing 70 and the missus felt it was too fast given the narrow configuration.
VDOT has not lowered the speed limit for ANY of the projects associated with I-95 or the Beltway on the west side in the 19 years I've been commuting these, to my recollection.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 20, 2017, 08:36:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 20, 2017, 07:46:07 AM
I was quite surprised the speed limit is still 65 in there. VDOT usually reduces it in work zones. I was doing 70 and the missus felt it was too fast given the narrow configuration.
VDOT has not lowered the speed limit for ANY of the projects associated with I-95 or the Beltway on the west side in the 19 years I've been commuting these, to my recollection.
I should have worded that differently. Not sure what I was thinking when I typed that because it's utterly inaccurate and too sweeping a statement the way I worded it. I seem to recall having seen a number of instances where they've lowered 65-mph limits to 55 during construction when there's no shoulder available. In this case, it might not be a bad idea because in addition to it feeling pretty narrow, there's also the issue of the ruts (for lack of a better term) left by the old striping.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 20, 2017, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 20, 2017, 08:36:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 20, 2017, 07:46:07 AM
I was quite surprised the speed limit is still 65 in there. VDOT usually reduces it in work zones. I was doing 70 and the missus felt it was too fast given the narrow configuration.
VDOT has not lowered the speed limit for ANY of the projects associated with I-95 or the Beltway on the west side in the 19 years I've been commuting these, to my recollection.
I should have worded that differently. Not sure what I was thinking when I typed that because it's utterly inaccurate and too sweeping a statement the way I worded it. I seem to recall having seen a number of instances where they've lowered 65-mph limits to 55 during construction when there's no shoulder available. In this case, it might not be a bad idea because in addition to it feeling pretty narrow, there's also the issue of the ruts (for lack of a better term) left by the old striping.
Sure...VDOT lowers speed limits on construction zones all over the state. Just not on 95 and 495 in Northern Virginia.
Which is not that surprising. The toll lanes have locations with no shoulders on either side and on the beltway the majority of them have zero shoulder on one side. Southbound there is a location where on-ramps come together from both the left and right at the same location. If 65 mph is ok there, it should be 65 pretty much anywhere on a freeway...
Va. reaches deal to extend 95 Express Lanes to near Fredericksburg (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/01/va-reaches-deal-extend-95-express-lanes-10-miles-south-near-fredericksburg/)
QuoteVirginia has reached a deal to extend the 95 Express Lanes south toward Fredericksburg, and the agreement includes a large enough payment from the private company building the lanes to support an additional I-95 northbound bridge over the Rappahannock River that VDOT had scrapped.
QuoteOutgoing Gov. Terry McAuliffe told the Commonwealth Transportation Board Wednesday morning that the agreement to extend the lanes to Exit 133 (Route 17) includes no upfront money from Virginia taxpayers.
Quote from: BrianP on January 10, 2018, 10:06:27 AM
Va. reaches deal to extend 95 Express Lanes to near Fredericksburg (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/01/va-reaches-deal-extend-95-express-lanes-10-miles-south-near-fredericksburg/)QuoteVirginia has reached a deal to extend the 95 Express Lanes south toward Fredericksburg, and the agreement includes a large enough payment from the private company building the lanes to support an additional I-95 northbound bridge over the Rappahannock River that VDOT had scrapped.
QuoteOutgoing Gov. Terry McAuliffe told the Commonwealth Transportation Board Wednesday morning that the agreement to extend the lanes to Exit 133 (Route 17) includes no upfront money from Virginia taxpayers.
Wow... that happened quicker than I thought it would
I'm a little skeptical about the "no upfront money from Virginia taxpayers" part...
The part I found the most interesting is this paragraph:
QuoteLike the additional southbound bridge planned in the area, the northbound span will provide through-lanes that connect to the Express Lanes, while the existing lanes of I-95 will become local lanes in an effort to reduce weaving in the area and speed up traffic.
I haven't paid much attention to the plans for the southbound bridge, but based on this paragraph, I have a mental image of something conceptually similar to the setup around and over the Wilson Bridge such that thru traffic would be segregated (without paying a toll) from traffic going to or from Exit 133. Anyone have more detailed information about what's described in the paragraph quoted above?
Quote from: froggie on January 10, 2018, 11:51:42 AM
I'm a little skeptical about the "no upfront money from Virginia taxpayers" part...
"The private companies behind the lanes – Transurban – will pay $277 million up front, part of which will cover the northbound bridge over the river that VDOT had canceled last June."
What about tolls? Nothing in the article about tolls.
Gov. Terry McAuliffe's final transportation deal: 10 more miles of toll lanes on Interstate 95 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/01/10/gov-terry-mcauliffes-final-transportation-deal-10-more-miles-of-toll-lanes-on-interstate-95/?hpid=hp_local-news_95tolls-230pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
QuoteTransportation Secretary Aubrey Layne, who is taking a new role as finance secretary in the incoming administration of Gov.-elect Ralph Northam (D), said after the construction of the northbound bridge over the Rappahannock, the state will have $232 million left. The Commonwealth Transportation Board will need to decide how to spend the rest of the funds in the corridor, he said.
QuoteTransportation Secretary Aubrey Layne, who is taking a new role as finance secretary in the incoming administration of Gov.-elect Ralph Northam (D), said after the construction of the northbound bridge over the Rappahannock, the state will have $232 million left. The Commonwealth Transportation Board will need to decide how to spend the rest of the funds in the corridor, he said.
Glad to see the Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project, which is essential to helping fix the regular northbound congestion on weekends, finally funded. Will be interesting to see exactly how the CTB decides to spend the rest of the funds. Thus this brings me to two questions:
1. Are the extra funds only available for I-95 corridor improvements in the Fredericksburg region or could they be used for I-95 corridor improvements elsewhere? Ex. Northern Virginia
2. Could the extra funds be used to widen a section of I-95 where the current HOT lanes exist while not creating a compensation event with Transburban? Ex. Extending the southbound 4th lane to PW Pkwy?
If yes to #1 and no to #2, then IMO at least part of that money should be used to build a 4th southbound lane from where the future southbound local and thru lanes merge(about a mile south of Exit 130) to US-1/US-17(Exit 126).
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 12:01:24 PM
The part I found the most interesting is this paragraph:
QuoteLike the additional southbound bridge planned in the area, the northbound span will provide through-lanes that connect to the Express Lanes, while the existing lanes of I-95 will become local lanes in an effort to reduce weaving in the area and speed up traffic.
I haven't paid much attention to the plans for the southbound bridge, but based on this paragraph, I have a mental image of something conceptually similar to the setup around and over the Wilson Bridge such that thru traffic would be segregated (without paying a toll) from traffic going to or from Exit 133. Anyone have more detailed information about what's described in the paragraph quoted above?
I was able to do some more reading about this earlier this morning and it seems it will indeed be a Wilson Bridge type setup running from just north of Exit 133 to just south of Exit 130, with the new bridges in each direction carrying what I assume will be called "Thru" lanes to segregate the long-distance traffic from the traffic going to or from either of those two interchanges. The map I saw did not show how the HO/T lanes will connect to all this, of course. It'll be interesting to see how they configure it.
I still wonder at what point it becomes inefficient to continue to extend a reversible carriageway such that it might make more sense to configure the road with permanent HO/T lanes in both directions (whether configured as on the Beltway or along the lines of Maryland's I-95 ETLs). I'm not saying this extension pushes past that point–I have no idea when you reach that point. I'm just speculating that at some point you probably reach a distance that's too far for reversible lanes. For what it's worth, it's just under 45 miles from Exit 133 to the northern end of the reversible carriageway near the Pentagon (using as endpoints the northern end of the northbound C/D roadway at Exit 133 and a point in the general-purpose lanes next to where the reversible carriageway splits into the two inner carriageways leading to and from the 14th Street Bridge).
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 09:47:42 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 12:01:24 PM
The part I found the most interesting is this paragraph:
QuoteLike the additional southbound bridge planned in the area, the northbound span will provide through-lanes that connect to the Express Lanes, while the existing lanes of I-95 will become local lanes in an effort to reduce weaving in the area and speed up traffic.
I haven't paid much attention to the plans for the southbound bridge, but based on this paragraph, I have a mental image of something conceptually similar to the setup around and over the Wilson Bridge such that thru traffic would be segregated (without paying a toll) from traffic going to or from Exit 133. Anyone have more detailed information about what's described in the paragraph quoted above?
I was able to do some more reading about this earlier this morning and it seems it will indeed be a Wilson Bridge type setup running from just north of Exit 133 to just south of Exit 130, with the new bridges in each direction carrying what I assume will be called "Thru" lanes to segregate the long-distance traffic from the traffic going to or from either of those two interchanges. The map I saw did not show how the HO/T lanes will connect to all this, of course. It'll be interesting to see how they configure it.
From VDOT's website in what appears to be the chosen configuration of the future HOT lanes southern terminus and connection to the Rappahannock River Crossing project in the vicinity of Exit 133.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Fred_Ex_PH_Display_1A_Connection_at_Route_17.pdf
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 12:01:24 PM
I still wonder at what point it becomes inefficient to continue to extend a reversible carriageway such that it might make more sense to configure the road with permanent HO/T lanes in both directions (whether configured as on the Beltway or along the lines of Maryland's I-95 ETLs). I'm not saying this extension pushes past that point–I have no idea when you reach that point. I'm just speculating that at some point you probably reach a distance that's too far for reversible lanes. For what it's worth, it's just under 45 miles from Exit 133 to the northern end of the reversible carriageway near the Pentagon (using as endpoints the northern end of the northbound C/D roadway at Exit 133 and a point in the general-purpose lanes next to where the reversible carriageway splits into the two inner carriageways leading to and from the 14th Street Bridge).
Good question as I have found myself wondering that as well. A potential HOT lanes extension to Massaponax would probably be the max distance a reversible carriageway system could work. Any extension further south, should there be the demand for it, needs to be HOT lanes in both directions.
I am aware there are some replies around here about the impending construction, but none yet are in-depth on the construction efforts that have recently started.
To be honest, we've had a lack of interesting construction projects in a while. Most of what I see on VDOT's Northern Virginia projects page (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northern%20virginia/default.asp) happen to be minor fixes with even the fascinating ones having wrapped a few years ago. I will, however make an exception for Loudoun County; since their roads are being widened/extended left and right, not to mention VA 7 is definitely ramping up the process to become a freeway with several interchanges underway. Sure, construction may be a pain and most of us would like to skip ahead to the finished result (or even backwards), but we might still miss the days of various projects such as Springfield Interchange, the Woodrow Wilson Interchange and even the 495 HOT Lanes as they broadly transformed their respective highway vicinities. The I-95 projects definitely made a change for that highway, but very little was constructed outside some transfer ramps and sound walls.
So far what I've seen of I-66 is only some unnoticeable clearing at the VA 28 interchanges and near sound walls between Exits 57 and 60. I haven't been back in two weeks but from what I know it's been just about two months since the groundbreaking. For comparison the 495 Express lanes broke ground in late July 2008, and in the exact same timeframe they were already striping the lanes and clearing decent swaths of land. I might be a bit off considering any less space the new construction would use, but they have some big work to do by ~mid-2020.
As for my thoughts on the project itself, it's a shame that the free I-66 lanes will be deducted in several places even as the whole will be widened to at least 10 travel lanes throughout. About the whole HOT lanes concept, it would work nicely with HOV commuters, but honestly the EZPass fees are an issue. What do you all expect of this work coming up? :hmmm:
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 23, 2018, 07:40:45 PM
To be honest, we've had a lack of interesting construction projects in a while. Most of what I see on VDOT's Northern Virginia projects page (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northern%20virginia/default.asp) happen to be minor fixes with even the fascinating ones having wrapped a few years ago. I will, however make an exception for Loudoun County; since their roads are being widened/extended left and right, not to mention VA 7 is definitely ramping up the process to become a freeway with several interchanges underway. Sure, construction may be a pain and most of us would like to skip ahead to the finished result (or even backwards), but we might still miss the days of various projects such as Springfield Interchange, the Woodrow Wilson Interchange and even the 495 HOT Lanes as they broadly transformed their respective highway vicinities. The I-95 projects definitely made a change for that highway, but very little was constructed outside some transfer ramps and sound walls.
While the term "interesting construction projects" is likely different for each and every one of us, the answer to your statement is likely due to the fact that now thanks to smart scale, obtaining needed state funding for big dollar projects is much more challenging. Hence as a result, projects ranging from I-66 Outside the Beltway(2.3 billion) to the Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing Project(Around 130 million) are being fully funded in PP3 deals.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 23, 2018, 07:40:45 PM
So far what I've seen of I-66 is only some unnoticeable clearing at the VA 28 interchanges and near sound walls between Exits 57 and 60. I haven't been back in two weeks but from what I know it's been just about two months since the groundbreaking. For comparison the 495 Express lanes broke ground in late July 2008, and in the exact same timeframe they were already striping the lanes and clearing decent swaths of land. I might be a bit off considering any less space the new construction would use, but they have some big work to do by ~mid-2020.
Pretty sure at the moment only initial utility relocation and tree clearing are underway. Major construction will begin come spring.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 23, 2018, 07:40:45 PM
What do you all expect of this work coming up? :hmmm:
I predict during both rush hour and major lane closures it'll be absolute hell.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 23, 2018, 10:34:21 PM
While the term "interesting construction projects" is likely different for each and every one of us, the answer to your statement is likely due to the fact that now thanks to smart scale, obtaining needed state funding for big dollar projects is much more challenging. Hence as a result, projects ranging from I-66 Outside the Beltway(2.3 billion) to the Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing Project(Around 130 million) are being fully funded in PP3 deals.
I would largely classify interesting projects as those I either follow during construction or look back at from time to time (such as the ones I mentioned). That of which depends on the time lapsed from start to finish, the breadth of construction and what major changes it brings once finished. Looking into what I said, that VDOT list mostly consists of non-road and bridge construction/rehabilitation spot projects. I'll say those are useful to those living and commuting in those areas however those bring nothing really major that we can discuss here.
Also what would you consider to be this "smart scale" thing? I'm not well-versed in any of these financing aspects, but I assume since both of these seem to be HOT lane projects that must signal some funding difficulties. Even then we've had some decent projects in the past few years, such as the Gainesville Interchange and Arlington Blvd. interchange reconstruction that have lasted some years.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 23, 2018, 10:34:21 PM
Pretty sure at the moment only initial utility relocation and tree clearing are underway. Major construction will begin come spring.
Not too sure about that. Yesterday I went by the I-66 corridor between VA 28 and the Fairfax County Parkway... and all I could really see were some minor clearings that most commuters may not notice, if any signs at all. For that stretch of the highway I could assume there is not much need for clearing since the final footprint is only slightly larger, however on major interchanges and heading towards the Beltway (where the highway is 6 lanes, not counting the shoulders) this concerns me. They have some pretty lofty goals for last month and now but they don't seem to be going that fast. (http://outside.transform66.org/documents/dphnancyuploads111017/planned_winter_2017-2018_construction_activity_2_final.pdf)
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 23, 2018, 10:34:21 PM
I predict during both rush hour and major lane closures it'll be absolute hell.
I see. However do you also think the final result will be worth it anyway or not? Just wondering.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 29, 2018, 11:52:29 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 23, 2018, 10:34:21 PM
While the term "interesting construction projects" is likely different for each and every one of us, the answer to your statement is likely due to the fact that now thanks to smart scale, obtaining needed state funding for big dollar projects is much more challenging. Hence as a result, projects ranging from I-66 Outside the Beltway(2.3 billion) to the Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing Project(Around 130 million) are being fully funded in PP3 deals.
Also what would you consider to be this "smart scale" thing?
In a nutshell, Smart Scale is designed to "take the politics out" of funding road projects by unbiasedly scoring potential projects via a computer system. The projects that score the highest get the limited state funding. For more details here's a link to the smart scale website:
http://vasmartscale.org/about/default.asp
For example the US-460 toll project was for years pushed by the McDonnell administration as very important and key to alleviating traffic on I-64. However, even when a smaller more scaled back version of the project was submitted to smart scale last year, the project scored terribly thus leading to the funds being used to instead widen I-64 on the peninsula, IMO a much better project and use of limited money.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 29, 2018, 11:52:29 AM
Not too sure about that. Yesterday I went by the I-66 corridor between VA 28 and the Fairfax County Parkway... and all I could really see were some minor clearings that most commuters may not notice, if any signs at all. For that stretch of the highway I could assume there is not much need for clearing since the final footprint is only slightly larger, however on major interchanges and heading towards the Beltway (where the highway is 6 lanes, not counting the shoulders) this concerns me. They have some pretty lofty goals for last month and now but they don't seem to be going that fast. (http://outside.transform66.org/documents/dphnancyuploads111017/planned_winter_2017-2018_construction_activity_2_final.pdf)
If thats the case, than they are likely already behind schedule. Doesn't surprise me as Cintra, the parent company of I-66 mobility partners, doesn't exactly have the greatest track record(Multiple bankruptcies and I-77 express lanes controversy down in Charlotte N.C).
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 29, 2018, 11:52:29 AM
I see. However do you also think the final result will be worth it anyway or not? Just wondering.
If the project was just adding 2 HOT lanes in each direction, than no I would say 4 years of hell would not be worth it. However since they are also getting rid of the last lights on Va-28 north of I-66, rebuilding basically every interchange between Gainesville and the Beltway, and on top of that giving the state an extra $500 million to spend on the corridor, than the final result should be a substantial improvement to what exists currently and IMO will be well worth the pain of construction in the long run.
Hopefully they keep the projected speed limit high, so that they can take in higher toll revenues and keep traffic to a lower volume. My guess is given the wealth of Loudoun and Western Fairfax, once people enjoy higher speeds, they won't mind paying more in tolls to keep it.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 23, 2018, 10:34:21 PM
In a nutshell, Smart Scale is designed to "take the politics out" of funding road projects by unbiasedly scoring potential projects via a computer system. The projects that score the highest get the limited state funding. For more details here's a link to the smart scale website:
http://vasmartscale.org/about/default.asp (http://vasmartscale.org/about/default.asp)
For example the US-460 toll project was for years pushed by the McDonnell administration as very important and key to alleviating traffic on I-64. However, even when a smaller more scaled back version of the project was submitted to smart scale last year, the project scored terribly thus leading to the funds being used to instead widen I-64 on the peninsula, IMO a much better project and use of limited money.
I see. Though in inexperienced terms, could this be why express lanes are such a hot commodity here presently and is there a lack of major proposed projects that are actively discussed? Sure there are many works to conduct here in order to improve traffic, however I feel like none of these have been recently been spoken of.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 23, 2018, 10:34:21 PM
If thats the case, than they are likely already behind schedule. Doesn't surprise me as Cintra, the parent company of I-66 mobility partners, doesn't exactly have the greatest track record(Multiple bankruptcies and I-77 express lanes controversy down in Charlotte N.C).
Sure seems curious. I'm only hoping there is no controversy as a result and things can flow nicely once it's done.
Though I returned to the highway in the following two days (all the way to the Beltway) and I could notice the clearing of the VA 28 southeast quadrant "mound" was underway (but not on the Poplar Tree overpass), and the clearing by Fairfax/Oakton was slowly becoming more visible. Otherwise all I see are really construction lots for various equipment and such.
While there is nothing else planned for this month of February, I assume they could use this time to catch up until then.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 23, 2018, 10:34:21 PM
If the project was just adding 2 HOT lanes in each direction, than no I would say 4 years of hell would not be worth it. However since they are also getting rid of the last lights on Va-28 north of I-66, rebuilding basically every interchange between Gainesville and the Beltway, and on top of that giving the state an extra $500 million to spend on the corridor, than the final result should be a substantial improvement to what exists currently and IMO will be well worth the pain of construction in the long run.
That's really what makes the project interesting unlike the work on I-95 (in comparison). While we have another DDI and new overpasses as well I certainly say that the VA 28 interchange is the crown jewel of this project. It's definitely been a pain traveling through that area most times and hopefully the pieces finally move forward. While most of the interchanges will only be retrofitted to fit the new highway footprint, many of them will include C/D lanes to separate traffic easily. Definitely an improvement over the more open setups we have presently.
Also what do you think VDOT should spend on with the $500M left over? If not a Metrorail extension I would go for building a Bull Run Bypass connector to Manassas.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 30, 2018, 01:30:15 PM
Hopefully they keep the projected speed limit high, so that they can take in higher toll revenues and keep traffic to a lower volume. My guess is given the wealth of Loudoun and Western Fairfax, once people enjoy higher speeds, they won't mind paying more in tolls to keep it.
There's definitely going to be a higher speed on the 66 Express Lanes as with 495 and 95. At least 65 MPH I say, however there are 60 and 65 MPH general-purpose portions down the corridor, so I could assume it may be higher in those locations if the regular lanes are not lowered.
Also some (emotional ) news... sadly the recent I-66 traffic management system will end within the next year for this construction. It seems rather wasteful that it could not be implemented into this project nor anywhere else. This leaves only about three years of use amongst other newer improvements to the highway (paving from US 50 to the Beltway, the I-495 interchange).
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/01/exclusive-66-toll-construction-take-2-year-old-high-tech-traffic-management-system/ (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/01/exclusive-66-toll-construction-take-2-year-old-high-tech-traffic-management-system/)
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 03, 2018, 01:13:41 PM
Also what do you think VDOT should spend on with the $500M left over? If not a Metrorail extension I would go for building a Bull Run Bypass connector to Manassas.
Here is the List of 15 Concession Fee Projects Recommended By Commonwealth Transportation Board:
http://outside.transform66.org/learn_more/concession_fee_project.asp
Of those projects, some that stand out include:
-A DDI at VA-234 and Balls Ford Road
-Balls Ford Road Widening from Groveton road to Route 234 Business(Sudley Road)
- I-66 median widening at US-29 in Centreville
- Finish Widening US-29 to six lanes from I-66 in Centreville to US-50 in Fairfax
- VRE Capacity improvements
I personally have no problem with the CTB recommendations. As for funding the Bull Run Bypass, I think that had the project been further along(Haven't even picked a definitive route yet) it would have likely gotten a decent chunk of the $500M. However, if I recall correctly, the NVTA had originally set aside $300 million for the I-66/VA-28 rebuild, which now after being covered by the HOT lanes project, is freed up and will likely be used to fund whatever alternative VDOT and the NVTA pick for the Bull Run Bypass.
QuoteThere's definitely going to be a higher speed on the 66 Express Lanes as with 495 and 95. At least 65 MPH I say, however there are 60 and 65 MPH general-purpose portions down the corridor, so I could assume it may be higher in those locations if the regular lanes are not lowered.
The report I saw said the I-66 HO/T lanes outside the Beltway will most likely get a 70-mph speed limit.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 03, 2018, 02:13:47 PM
Here is the List of 15 Concession Fee Projects Recommended By Commonwealth Transportation Board:
http://outside.transform66.org/learn_more/concession_fee_project.asp
Of those projects, some that stand out include:
-A DDI at VA-234 and Balls Ford Road
-Balls Ford Road Widening from Groveton road to Route 234 Business(Sudley Road)
- I-66 median widening at US-29 in Centreville
- Finish Widening US-29 to six lanes from I-66 in Centreville to US-50 in Fairfax
- VRE Capacity improvements
I personally have no problem with the CTB recommendations. As for funding the Bull Run Bypass, I think that had the project been further along(Haven't even picked a definitive route yet) it would have likely gotten a decent chunk of the $500M. However, if I recall correctly, the NVTA had originally set aside $300 million for the I-66/VA-28 rebuild, which now after being covered by the HOT lanes project, is freed up and will likely be used to fund whatever alternative VDOT and the NVTA pick for the Bull Run Bypass.
Not too shabby. The one I'd personally pick is the DDI or the VA 28 corridor solutions, mostly as they seem logical.
Also what exactly do you mean by the median widening? Metrorail will not go any further there? And do you have anything else to say about my previous statements above?
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 04, 2018, 04:22:18 PM
The report I saw said the I-66 HO/T lanes outside the Beltway will most likely get a 70-mph speed limit.
Exciting news! This plus the permitted trucks rule (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2016/12/va-sign-66-toll-lane-deal-includes-ok-trucks-lanes/) in the lanes could be a huge draw for this project. Maybe they could even go up to 75 or 80 for added benefit further out...? :bigass:
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 04, 2018, 11:11:47 PM
Also what exactly do you mean by the median widening? Metrorail will not go any further there? And do you have anything else to say about my previous statements above?
http://outside.transform66.org/documents/concession2018/08_-_I66_Median_Widening.pdf
Basically, the I-66 overpass will be rebuilt, raised, and widened so that US-29 underneath can be widened to six lanes at some point. The project also accommodates a potential metro extension to Centreville via the median(which is currently non-existent at Exit 52). On a separate note, perhaps one day when New Braddock Road is extended west and connected to Stone Rd/US-29 via a new bridge over I-66, it may make more sense to have an interchange there so that current Exit 52 could be closed due potential merging problems created by its proximity to a greatly upgraded VA-28/I-66 interchange(Exit 53).
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 03, 2018, 01:13:41 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 23, 2018, 10:34:21 PM
In a nutshell, Smart Scale is designed to "take the politics out" of funding road projects by unbiasedly scoring potential projects via a computer system. The projects that score the highest get the limited state funding. For more details here's a link to the smart scale website:
http://vasmartscale.org/about/default.asp (http://vasmartscale.org/about/default.asp)
For example the US-460 toll project was for years pushed by the McDonnell administration as very important and key to alleviating traffic on I-64. However, even when a smaller more scaled back version of the project was submitted to smart scale last year, the project scored terribly thus leading to the funds being used to instead widen I-64 on the peninsula, IMO a much better project and use of limited money.
I see. Though in inexperienced terms, could this be why express lanes are such a hot commodity here presently and is there a lack of major proposed projects that are actively discussed?
Exactly^and so far since Smart Scale appears to favor funding multiple smaller projects instead of one mega-project, the only way I see major projects such as widening I-81 ever being funded is through a P3 deal.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 03, 2018, 01:13:41 PM
Sure there are many works to conduct here in order to improve traffic, however I feel like none of these have been recently been spoken of.
What "works" did you have in mind?
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 03, 2018, 01:13:41 PM
Also some (emotional ) news... sadly the recent I-66 traffic management system will end within the next year for this construction. It seems rather wasteful that it could not be implemented into this project nor anywhere else. This leaves only about three years of use amongst other newer improvements to the highway (paving from US 50 to the Beltway, the I-495 interchange).
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/01/exclusive-66-toll-construction-take-2-year-old-high-tech-traffic-management-system/ (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/01/exclusive-66-toll-construction-take-2-year-old-high-tech-traffic-management-system/)
Was the I-66 traffic management system even popular? From personal experience and through conversations with some regular I-66 commuters, I was under the impression that the speeds posted were frequently both way off and very distracting(in a bad way). The only thing useful about it IMO was the Red X/Green arrow informing you whether or not the rightsholder lane was open.
Quote from: Jmiles32it may make more sense to have an interchange there so that current Exit 52 could be closed due potential merging problems created by its proximity to a greatly upgraded VA-28/I-66 interchange(Exit 53).
They won't close 52. Serves far more traffic than any "Stone Rd/Braddock Rd" interchange might. Furthermore, even with an upgraded Exit 53, there will be at least a half-mile between the EB on-ramp from 29 and the exit to NB 28, which means technically it won't be a weave (per the Highway Capacity Manual). Also, unlike today, there will be an auxiliary lane between the two ramps.
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2018, 08:09:11 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32it may make more sense to have an interchange there so that current Exit 52 could be closed due potential merging problems created by its proximity to a greatly upgraded VA-28/I-66 interchange(Exit 53).
They won't close 52. Serves far more traffic than any "Stone Rd/Braddock Rd" interchange might. Furthermore, even with an upgraded Exit 53, there will be at least a half-mile between the EB on-ramp from 29 and the exit to NB 28, which means technically it won't be a weave (per the Highway Capacity Manual). Also, unlike today, there will be an auxiliary lane between the two ramps.
Fair points. However as part of the I-66 median widening project, IMO it wouldn't hurt to redo/tweak the Exit 52 interchange. The interchange's two merging points onto I-66 westbound are unnecessary and contribute to afternoon traffic. I've heard a DDI mentioned as a possibility and agree that one could work well here.
The two westbound merging points ARE necessary due to the heavy "westbound" 29 to westbound 66 movement. Remember that this direction also serves as a route from New Braddock Rd and 28 South to get to westbound 66. A traditional diamond interchange would have a very overwhelmed left turn lane.
From a traffic standpoint, a DDI would work. But a major physical hindrance is the eastbound off-ramp from 66. The left turn would be way too tight with a DDI, and expanding the ramp out is impractical due to the development in that corner.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2018, 12:05:36 AM
From a traffic standpoint, a DDI would work. But a major physical hindrance is the eastbound off-ramp from 66. The left turn would be way too tight with a DDI, and expanding the ramp out is impractical due to the development in that corner.
Thanks to space the westbound US-29 to westbound I-66 loop ramp currently occupies, theoretically if it was removed, the new I-66 overpass(and I-66 itself) could be shifted west allowing more room for the eastbound I-66 off-ramp. Obviously, this idea would be extremely expensive and begs the question of how badly Exit 52 needs improvements given the potentially high cost. After I-66 outside the beltway is complete, this should become more clear.
Don't forget I-66 will be four lanes wider overall, which might impact the space for shifting that overpass.
^ Technically 2 lanes wider here, not 4, as they're going from 6 + 2 HOV to 6 + 4 HOT.
From what I saw of the design plans, they'll be squeezing everything onto the existing I-66 bridges at Exit 52, presumably to save money and because those bridges were rebuilt not all that long ago.
Jmiles: while the existing loop ramp might provide some space for a westward shift as you suggest, that is only in the case in the northwest corner of the interchange. It does *NOT* provide space for a westward mainline shift in the southwest corner, where the presence of Big Rocky Run (the stream) constricts things.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2018, 02:28:46 PM
Jmiles: while the existing loop ramp might provide some space for a westward shift as you suggest, that is only in the case in the northwest corner of the interchange. It does *NOT* provide space for a westward mainline shift in the southwest corner, where the presence of Big Rocky Run (the stream) constricts things.
Yeah any proposed project that involves relocating or removing Big Rocky Run would get shut down immeaditly.
WAMU has an article in which an analyst debunks a lot of the media hysteria about HO/T lanes:
https://wamu.org/story/18/02/22/beyond-40-tolls-express-lanes-helping-northern-virginia-beat-traffic-congestion/
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 23, 2018, 10:02:08 AM
WAMU has an article in which an analyst debunks a lot of the media hysteria about HO/T lanes:
https://wamu.org/story/18/02/22/beyond-40-tolls-express-lanes-helping-northern-virginia-beat-traffic-congestion/
That's essentially an op-ed rather than an objective article.
Quote from: Rothman on February 23, 2018, 10:16:18 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 23, 2018, 10:02:08 AM
WAMU has an article in which an analyst debunks a lot of the media hysteria about HO/T lanes:
https://wamu.org/story/18/02/22/beyond-40-tolls-express-lanes-helping-northern-virginia-beat-traffic-congestion/
That's essentially an op-ed rather than an objective article.
Except the analyst doesn't work for the radio station, which is why I wouldn't consider it an op-ed–I've always understood that term to mean it reflects an opinion from someone working for the media outlet that ran the piece.
Washington Post: Virginia explores extending the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-explores-extending-the-495-express-lanes-to-the-american-legion-bridge/2018/06/30/20ee5400-7957-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?utm_term=.1c6c6fbe1a32)
QuoteA plan to expand the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge will add three miles to Virginia's system of high-occupancy toll lanes – and provide a critical link to the region's growing toll network.
QuoteThe proposed highway widening would complete the last leg of a tolling system on Northern Virginia's portion of the Capital Beltway and connect to Maryland's proposed toll lanes for its side of the Beltway, Interstate 270 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
Quote"Now with Maryland talking about [toll lanes on] their side of the river and doing something in that stretch, there is more incentive for us to move forward with this project," said Susan Shaw, director of Megaprojects for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Related article about Maryland managed lanes is here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4671.msg2338464#msg2338464).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2018, 07:32:56 PM
Washington comPost: Virginia explores extending the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge
QuoteA plan to expand the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge will add three miles to Virginia's system of high-occupancy toll lanes – and provide a critical link to the region's growing toll network.
If the cited plan in the article is to add 2 HOT lanes each way between VA-267 and the river, then they can finalize the rest of the upgrade plan to the VA-267/I-495 interchange.
There are two left exit ramps from I-495 that need to be upgraded to right hand exits, and there are 6 mainline bridges of I-495 over VA-267 and ramps that are the original 1964/1977 bridges and they need to be replaced.
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 08:40:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2018, 07:32:56 PM
Washington comPost: Virginia explores extending the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge
QuoteA plan to expand the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge will add three miles to Virginia's system of high-occupancy toll lanes – and provide a critical link to the region's growing toll network.
If the cited plan in the article is to add 2 HOT lanes each way between VA-267 and the river, then they can finalize the rest of the upgrade plan to the VA-267/I-495 interchange.
There are two left exit ramps from I-495 that need to be upgraded to right hand exits, and there are 6 mainline bridges of I-495 over VA-267 and ramps that are the original 1964/1977 bridges and they need to be replaced.
Is the work you mention ("the rest of the upgrade plan") part of a formal design or something you are proposing? Was it considered in the original contract?
Quote from: Steve D on July 05, 2018, 08:04:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 08:40:04 PM
If the cited plan in the article is to add 2 HOT lanes each way between VA-267 and the river, then they can finalize the rest of the upgrade plan to the VA-267/I-495 interchange.
There are two left exit ramps from I-495 that need to be upgraded to right hand exits, and there are 6 mainline bridges of I-495 over VA-267 and ramps that are the original 1964/1977 bridges and they need to be replaced.
Is the work you mention ("the rest of the upgrade plan") part of a formal design or something you are proposing? Was it considered in the original contract?
I was speaking generally, as I don't know what the official plan was, just noting that the interchange was only partly upgraded, the 2 HOT lanes were added each way thru the interchange area and then end a mile north of there; it seems apparent that it was unknown at the time whether the future HOT lanes extension would be one lane each way or two lanes each way; something that would depend on Maryland's future plans. So it seemed like a full interchange upgrade with total rebuild like what happened at I-66 and I-95/I-395 would await the future HOT lanes extension project.
Quote from: Beltway on July 05, 2018, 08:23:53 AM
So it seemed like a full interchange upgrade with total rebuild like what happened at I-66 and I-95/I-395 would await the future HOT lanes extension project.
If the I-495/VA-267 interchange does in fact receive a full interchange upgrade, it will be very interesting to see what designs both VDOT and the potential private partner come up with.
Speaking of rebuilds, the VA-193 and the GW Parkway overpasses will likely have to get rebuilt as well. While GW Parkway interchange should probably stay relatively the same, I think upgrading the VA-193 interchange to either a DDI or SPUI could be extremely beneficial.
WTOP has an analysis of when the HO/T lane tolls are most worth it. Lots of graphs and data: https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/07/are-tolls-worth-it-on-virginias-hot-lanes/
I also found this interesting:
QuoteSeparately, Transurban recently raised the minimum toll in the I-95 Express Lanes from $1 to $1.50 at times the road is quiet. The first base rate increase since the lanes opened at the end of 2014 is intended to cover operations costs.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
WTOP has an analysis of when the HO/T lane tolls are most worth it. Lots of graphs and data: https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/07/are-tolls-worth-it-on-virginias-hot-lanes/
I also found this interesting:
QuoteSeparately, Transurban recently raised the minimum toll in the I-95 Express Lanes from $1 to $1.50 at times the road is quiet. The first base rate increase since the lanes opened at the end of 2014 is intended to cover operations costs.
I have no issue with that. Transurban has to staff their operations center (near the interchange of I-395 and VA-648 (Edsall Road)) in Fairfax County, pay for VSP police patrols and provide Safety Service Patrol (IIRC they use a different name but you know what I mean) coverage 24/7. Even if they charge a minimum of $1.50 per trip, I doubt that they are making money most overnight hours.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2018, 10:30:43 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
WTOP has an analysis of when the HO/T lane tolls are most worth it. Lots of graphs and data: https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/07/are-tolls-worth-it-on-virginias-hot-lanes/
I also found this interesting:
QuoteSeparately, Transurban recently raised the minimum toll in the I-95 Express Lanes from $1 to $1.50 at times the road is quiet. The first base rate increase since the lanes opened at the end of 2014 is intended to cover operations costs.
I have no issue with that. Transurban has to staff their operations center (near the interchange of I-395 and VA-648 (Edsall Road)) in Fairfax County, pay for VSP police patrols and provide Safety Service Patrol (IIRC they use a different name but you know what I mean) coverage 24/7. Even if they charge a minimum of $1.50 per trip, I doubt that they are making money most overnight hours.
I wonder what their traffic counts are at night. If it's anything like Maryland's tolled lanes, some people use them regardless of how dead the free lanes are.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
WTOP has an analysis of when the HO/T lane tolls are most worth it. Lots of graphs and data: https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/07/are-tolls-worth-it-on-virginias-hot-lanes/
Presentation on which the WTOP story was based can be found here (http://66expresslanes.org/documents/66_inside_6_month_performance_july_2018.pdf) (Adobe Acrobat .pdf. 4.28 MB).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2018, 10:37:29 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2018, 10:30:43 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
WTOP has an analysis of when the HO/T lane tolls are most worth it. Lots of graphs and data: https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/07/are-tolls-worth-it-on-virginias-hot-lanes/
I also found this interesting:
QuoteSeparately, Transurban recently raised the minimum toll in the I-95 Express Lanes from $1 to $1.50 at times the road is quiet. The first base rate increase since the lanes opened at the end of 2014 is intended to cover operations costs.
I have no issue with that. Transurban has to staff their operations center (near the interchange of I-395 and VA-648 (Edsall Road)) in Fairfax County, pay for VSP police patrols and provide Safety Service Patrol (IIRC they use a different name but you know what I mean) coverage 24/7. Even if they charge a minimum of $1.50 per trip, I doubt that they are making money most overnight hours.
I wonder what their traffic counts are at night. If it's anything like Maryland's tolled lanes, some people use them regardless of how dead the free lanes are.
That's so true. When I'm traveling the stretch of I-95 N of Baltimore, I'm almost always traveling opposite peak direction or at non-peak times. Why anyone is paying a toll when I'm zipping along at full speed is mind boggling to me.
I-495 though is a little different since there are some exits on the express lanes that don't have a corollary on the main highway so it can save you ample time from having to circulate on side streets. You could still face plenty of red lights even when traffic is light.
Other thing is, on I-495 and I-95 the speed limit is higher in the HO/T lanes. If you do get stopped, the fine would be less and it'd carry fewer points.
Washington Post: Here's a look at who's using Northern Virginia's 495 and 95 express lanes (https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2018/09/20/heres-look-whos-using-northern-virginias-express-lanes/?utm_term=.be28c5a240cf)
QuoteThe average user is younger than 45 and has a household income of less than $100,000 a year, according to a new survey.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/09/how-many-people-are-going-out-of-their-way-to-avoid-dc-areas-tolls/
QuoteOn the 495 Express Lanes in Virginia, fewer drivers paid to use the lanes this spring than last.
Tolls paid on the Capital Beltway dropped 13.2 percent from around $23 million to $20 million in April, May and June, compared to the same period a year earlier.
Average daily trips declined 5.3 percent in the 495 Express Lanes to 48,000 in the spring. On a year-to-year basis for the period ending June 30, average daily trips fell 1.2 percent, according to Transurban's financial reports.
The average 495 Express Lanes toll charged in April, May and June dropped from $5.77 to $5.40, leading to average workday toll revenue dropping to $294,000 from $341,000 last year.
On the 95 Express Lanes, which are also operated by Transurban, the number of average daily trips has remained flatter. Comparing April, May and June of this year to the previous year, the number of trips dropped 0.4 percent. For the full year that ended June 30, average daily trips increased 1.2 percent.
The average toll charged in April, May and June on the 95 Express Lanes was $8.45, about the same as the previous year; but, average workday toll revenue increased to $365,000 from $353,000 last year.
Combined, average daily trips in the 95 and 495 Express Lanes increased 0.5 percent in April, May and June, compared to the same period a year earlier.
QuoteOn the Dulles Greenway, the number of average workday trips dropped about 6 percent in the first half of this year, compared to the same period a year earlier, to about 58,600. On weekends and holidays, there are now an average of 31,300 trips. Toll revenue dropped about 3.6 percent, even after toll increases earlier in the year.
Owner Atlas Arteria blames upgrades to Route 7, Route 28 and other alternative routes, and Silver Line construction, for much of the decline, which is expected to continue.
The Greenway is in discussions with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority about changes at the eastern end's connection to the Dulles Toll Road in an effort to reduce congestion at the western end as well.
With decreased usage and increased alternatives, I wonder if there is even a remote chance of the Greenway owner selling the road to VDOT(or the state in general). I'm aware of failed negotiations in the past, but if this trend of decreased usage continues, I highly doubt 10-15 years from now the Greenway stays profitable(if it even is currently).
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 26, 2018, 11:04:50 PM
With decreased usage and increased alternatives, I wonder if there is even a remote chance of the Greenway owner selling the road to VDOT(or the state in general). I'm aware of failed negotiations in the past, but if this trend of decreased usage continues, I highly doubt 10-15 years from now the Greenway stays profitable(if it even is currently).
Many years ago, when the Greenway was proposed as a private toll road, the justifications offered were that a private firm would get the road opened faster than VDOT, and that there would be no taxpayer dollars used for the project.
Even though the elected officials making those promises are no longer in office, there are people that remember them, and would probably not be supportive of the Greenway being taken-over by a state entity.
Anyone here with a HOV switch NC Quickpass? Curious on how its works with the I-95/495 lanes as it claims to be E-ZPass Flex compatible despite being an "out of network" issued transponder.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 03, 2019, 06:55:54 PM
Anyone here with a HOV switch NC Quickpass? Curious on how its works with the I-95/495 lanes as it claims to be E-ZPass Flex compatible despite being an "out of network" issued transponder.
I didn't know they offered one. When did it become available? Is it supposedly compatible with SunPass as well as E-ZPass?
Edited to add: OK, since the hockey game is at intermission I looked it up. The QuickPass website says, "Please note: the transponder can also be used for free HOV travel in the I-66 and I-495/I-95 Express Lanes in Virginia." Very interesting because it says it's also compatible with SunPass and Peach Pass. I just might have to consider QuickPass now, EXCEPT it costs $16.49 plus tax to get the device. I don't see much point in paying that when I already have the E-ZPass Flexes and the SunPass. Also, I still don't like their policy of "one car per transponder." Why shouldn't I be able to register four cars to two transponders, seeing as how there are two of us and we never have more than two cars being driven at any one time?
^ Is it really that much of a bother to have one transponder per car and all transponders on the same account? Works just fine for us, though we also don't have a zillion cars....
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2019, 11:17:23 PM
^ Is it really that much of a bother to have one transponder per car and all transponders on the same account? Works just fine for us, though we also don't have a zillion cars....
Typically each transponder requires you to put up more money–in Virginia, $35 per transponder (so we have to put up $70 each time our E-ZPass account replenishes). I don't know what the amount is in North Carolina. So yes, I don't see any reason to put up an extra $35 (plus $16.50 to buy the transponder) when we never drive more than two cars at any one time. There is absolutely no legitimate reason why they should try to restrict a hard-shell transponder to being used only in one particular vehicle.
WTOP Radio: I-66 tolls turn 1-year-old. Are they working? (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/01/average-i-66-price-speeds-from-first-year-of-tolls-and-extended-hov-hours/?fbclid=IwAR1r6NzpdB-ppPr_IASC_GR5fBBhjqRJSRVnMcid0b0Qr6gJmxyGxSR9gFE)
QuoteDriving alone each way at rush hour on Interstate 66 inside the Beltway during newly expanded HOV hours cost an average of $12.59 in the first year of tolls for solo drivers, a policy Virginia transportation officials say helped move more people through the congested corridor.
QuoteIn December 2017, the HOV hours were expanded eastbound to 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. and westbound to 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. and a new toll was added for solo drivers who previously were generally not allowed to use the road eastbound between 6:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. or westbound between 4:30 p.m. and 6 p.m.
QuoteSince the change, an average of 13,946 vehicles with at least two total people inside and an E-ZPass Flex in HOV mode have used the road each day during the expanded hours and an average of 18,279 vehicles pay a toll each weekday, a Department of Transportation review of the first year with the new rules said.
No tolls tonight on the HO/T lanes. I knew they sometimes do that when it snows to encourage people to use the lanes so as to help keep the pavement clear, but I had ever encountered it. The signs that normally show the toll amounts said:
ALL EXITS
$0.00
NO TOLLS
(But the sign at Duke Street still said "HOV-3 NEED FLEX FOR EXPRESS LANES." I thought that message should have been turned off for the night because, technically, you probably don't need an E-ZPass at all if they're not charging tolls.)
BTW, the reversible lanes would normally be pointed north on Saturday night, but they said they'd leave them southbound until Sunday afternoon in this weather. Strikes me as interesting that they'll consider changes due to weather but not due to excessive traffic on days like the Sunday after Thanksgiving when the bulk of the traffic is overwhelmingly headed south.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/01/29/virginia-seals-deal-extend-toll-lanes-capital-beltway-interstate/?utm_term=.50a72a757930
QuoteVirginia Gov. Ralph Northam announced Tuesday that the state has signed an agreement with Transurban to extend the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge, a project that will add nearly three miles to Virginia's system of high-occupancy toll lanes and provide a critical link to the region's growing toll network.
The state also is expanding the Interstate 95 toll lanes to Fredericksburg and adding a ramp and auxiliary lane in the Woodbridge area as part of new agreements with Transurban, Northam (D) said. The Northern Virginia projects amount to more than $1 billion in investments in transportation over the next five years, the governor said.
"These four significant projects on I-495 and I-95 will reduce congestion, improve safety and will be catalysts for economic growth," Northam said at a morning news conference. "My administration is committed to creating opportunity for Virginia families and businesses in every corner of the Commonwealth, and that requires having a safe, reliable transportation network."
Northam said the deals come after months of negotiation with Transurban, which funds and operates the 95 and 495 Express Lanes. The Australian company is also overseeing construction and operation of the 395 Express Lanes, converting an eight-mile stretch of Interstate 395 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes into toll lanes.
As part of the deal, Transurban will spend more than $550 million to complete the 2.5 miles extension of the 495 Express Lanes north to the American Legion Bridge, a project that officials say will reduce congestion in that stretch of the roadway known to be one of the biggest bottlenecks in the region, and help lessen cut-through traffic in nearby neighborhoods.
The highway widening will complete the last leg of a tolling system on Northern Virginia's portion of the Capital Beltway and connect to Maryland's proposed toll lanes for its side of the Beltway, Interstate 270 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
The Virginia project will include connections from the Express Lanes to the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Dulles Toll Road. When complete, four general purpose lanes and two new Express Lanes will run in each direction of the Capital Beltway in that stretch. With no public funding by the Commonwealth, the Express Lanes network will be extended to the Maryland border.
Along I-95, Transurban has agreed to build a new reversible ramp connecting the 95 Express Lanes at Opitz Boulevard to enhance access to the popular Potomac Mills shopping center. The company will also build a new southbound auxiliary lane on I-95 in Woodbridge to address traffic bottleneck at the Occoquan Bridge. The Occoquan auxiliary lane will connect the southbound Route 123 ramp onto I-95 with the off-ramp at westbound Prince William Parkway, officials said.
Hoping that last part regarding the Occoquan auxiliarily lane is incorrect. Extending the southbound VA-123 onramp to the westbound Prince William Parkway offramp does not really solve the issue of the terrible 4th gp lane merge. A better solution would be for it to continue past the VA-123 interchange and turn into an exit only lane right before the Prince William Parkway, similarly to how the express lanes currently go from 3 to 2 lanes at the same exit. Either way big news!
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 01:51:33 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/01/29/virginia-seals-deal-extend-toll-lanes-capital-beltway-interstate/?utm_term=.50a72a757930
QuoteVirginia Gov. Ralph Northam announced Tuesday that the state has signed an agreement with Transurban to extend the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge, a project that will add nearly three miles to Virginia's system of high-occupancy toll lanes and provide a critical link to the region's growing toll network.
The state also is expanding the Interstate 95 toll lanes to Fredericksburg and adding a ramp and auxiliary lane in the Woodbridge area as part of new agreements with Transurban, Northam (D) said. The Northern Virginia projects amount to more than $1 billion in investments in transportation over the next five years, the governor said.
"These four significant projects on I-495 and I-95 will reduce congestion, improve safety and will be catalysts for economic growth," Northam said at a morning news conference. "My administration is committed to creating opportunity for Virginia families and businesses in every corner of the Commonwealth, and that requires having a safe, reliable transportation network."
Northam said the deals come after months of negotiation with Transurban, which funds and operates the 95 and 495 Express Lanes. The Australian company is also overseeing construction and operation of the 395 Express Lanes, converting an eight-mile stretch of Interstate 395 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes into toll lanes.
As part of the deal, Transurban will spend more than $550 million to complete the 2.5 miles extension of the 495 Express Lanes north to the American Legion Bridge, a project that officials say will reduce congestion in that stretch of the roadway known to be one of the biggest bottlenecks in the region, and help lessen cut-through traffic in nearby neighborhoods.
The highway widening will complete the last leg of a tolling system on Northern Virginia's portion of the Capital Beltway and connect to Maryland's proposed toll lanes for its side of the Beltway, Interstate 270 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
The Virginia project will include connections from the Express Lanes to the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Dulles Toll Road. When complete, four general purpose lanes and two new Express Lanes will run in each direction of the Capital Beltway in that stretch. With no public funding by the Commonwealth, the Express Lanes network will be extended to the Maryland border.
Along I-95, Transurban has agreed to build a new reversible ramp connecting the 95 Express Lanes at Opitz Boulevard to enhance access to the popular Potomac Mills shopping center. The company will also build a new southbound auxiliary lane on I-95 in Woodbridge to address traffic bottleneck at the Occoquan Bridge. The Occoquan auxiliary lane will connect the southbound Route 123 ramp onto I-95 with the off-ramp at westbound Prince William Parkway, officials said.
Hoping that last part regarding the Occoquan auxiliarily lane is incorrect. Extending the southbound VA-123 onramp to the westbound Prince William Parkway offramp does not really solve the issue of the terrible 4th gp lane merge. A better solution would be for it to continue past the VA-123 interchange and turn into an exit only lane right before the Prince William Parkway, similarly to how the express lanes currently go from 3 to 2 lanes at the same exit. Either way big news!
I was thinking the same thing. Doing an auxiliary lane is a terrible idea. That should tie into that fourth lane. Driver's have a better opportunity to merge left at that point rather than crammed between US 1, the bridge, and VA-123. There could also be better signage if the fourth lane is fully extended. "Exit Only 2 Miles", etc.
The ultimate goal, which is proposed to be studied, should be to widen I-95 to 8 general purpose lanes from the Occoquan River to Fredericksburg, where that fourth lane could tie into the under construction C/D lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 01:51:33 PM
Hoping that last part regarding the Occoquan auxiliarily lane is incorrect. Extending the southbound VA-123 onramp to the westbound Prince William Parkway offramp does not really solve the issue of the terrible 4th gp lane merge. A better solution would be for it to continue past the VA-123 interchange and turn into an exit only lane right before the Prince William Parkway, similarly to how the express lanes currently go from 3 to 2 lanes at the same exit. Either way big news!
I was thinking the same thing. Doing an auxiliary lane is a terrible idea. That should tie into that fourth lane. Driver's have a better opportunity to merge left at that point rather than crammed between US 1, the bridge, and VA-123. There could also be better signage if the fourth lane is fully extended. "Exit Only 2 Miles", etc.
The ultimate goal, which is proposed to be studied, should be to widen I-95 to 8 general purpose lanes from the Occoquan River to Fredericksburg, where that fourth lane could tie into the under construction C/D lanes.
No way in hell I-95 gets 8 general purpose lanes all the way to Garrisonville unless either tolls or Transurban is involved. Since the deal to extend the lanes south of Garrisonville to Fredericksburg is different there may be a chance here, but IMO unlikely in the near future. Unfortunately this was VA's best chance to significantly fix the Occoquan bottleneck and it appears as if they failed miserably. No wonder Transurban has no problem with the auxiliarily lane since it likely won't do much to resolve the issue. I swear either the officials think they're fooling everyone or Transurban really is just that much smarter.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 07:23:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 01:51:33 PM
Hoping that last part regarding the Occoquan auxiliarily lane is incorrect. Extending the southbound VA-123 onramp to the westbound Prince William Parkway offramp does not really solve the issue of the terrible 4th gp lane merge. A better solution would be for it to continue past the VA-123 interchange and turn into an exit only lane right before the Prince William Parkway, similarly to how the express lanes currently go from 3 to 2 lanes at the same exit. Either way big news!
I was thinking the same thing. Doing an auxiliary lane is a terrible idea. That should tie into that fourth lane. Driver's have a better opportunity to merge left at that point rather than crammed between US 1, the bridge, and VA-123. There could also be better signage if the fourth lane is fully extended. "Exit Only 2 Miles", etc.
The ultimate goal, which is proposed to be studied, should be to widen I-95 to 8 general purpose lanes from the Occoquan River to Fredericksburg, where that fourth lane could tie into the under construction C/D lanes.
No way in hell I-95 gets 8 general purpose lanes all the way to Garrisonville unless either tolls or Transurban is involved. Since the deal to extend the lanes south of Garrisonville to Fredericksburg is different there may be a chance here, but IMO unlikely in the near future. Unfortunately this was VA's best chance to significantly fix the Occoquan bottleneck and it appears as if they failed miserably. No wonder Transurban has no problem with the auxiliarily lane since it likely won't do much to resolve the issue. I swear either the officials think they're fooling everyone or Transurban really is just that much smarter.
They screwed up badly with the Transurban deal. I-95 has been a mess for years, and they thought HO/T lanes would solve all the issues. They should've factored additional GP lanes in. The argument that "new general purpose lanes won't help" isn't true when traffic counts are over 200,000. An additional lane, in combination with interchange reconfigurations, aux lanes between all exits, tackled by a $1-2 billion project would severely help the corridor. You would have continuously 4 lanes in each direction, plus 5 in each direction between interchanges. Look at I-66 outside the beltway - exactly what's happening right now with a multi-billion dollar project to fix it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 07:27:41 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 07:23:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 01:51:33 PM
Hoping that last part regarding the Occoquan auxiliarily lane is incorrect. Extending the southbound VA-123 onramp to the westbound Prince William Parkway offramp does not really solve the issue of the terrible 4th gp lane merge. A better solution would be for it to continue past the VA-123 interchange and turn into an exit only lane right before the Prince William Parkway, similarly to how the express lanes currently go from 3 to 2 lanes at the same exit. Either way big news!
I was thinking the same thing. Doing an auxiliary lane is a terrible idea. That should tie into that fourth lane. Driver's have a better opportunity to merge left at that point rather than crammed between US 1, the bridge, and VA-123. There could also be better signage if the fourth lane is fully extended. "Exit Only 2 Miles", etc.
The ultimate goal, which is proposed to be studied, should be to widen I-95 to 8 general purpose lanes from the Occoquan River to Fredericksburg, where that fourth lane could tie into the under construction C/D lanes.
No way in hell I-95 gets 8 general purpose lanes all the way to Garrisonville unless either tolls or Transurban is involved. Since the deal to extend the lanes south of Garrisonville to Fredericksburg is different there may be a chance here, but IMO unlikely in the near future. Unfortunately this was VA's best chance to significantly fix the Occoquan bottleneck and it appears as if they failed miserably. No wonder Transurban has no problem with the auxiliarily lane since it likely won't do much to resolve the issue. I swear either the officials think they're fooling everyone or Transurban really is just that much smarter.
An additional lane, in combination with interchange reconfigurations, aux lanes between all exits, tackled by a $1-2 billion project would severely help the corridor. You would have continuously 4 lanes in each direction, plus 5 in each direction between interchanges. Look at I-66 outside the beltway - exactly what's happening right now with a multi-billion dollar project to fix it.
That's exactly what should have happened, but unfortunately since VA was relatively new to P3 deals at the time, it did not and thus a horrific contract was signed that continues to screw over I-95 today. Transurban, a private company looking to make a profit, has zero interest in allowing for VA to freely improve I-95 thereby negatively affecting their collected toll revenue. The only options for VA are to either make more deals, pay compensation, or do nothing. Glad they at least got the I-66 project right.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 07:57:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 07:27:41 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 07:23:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 01:51:33 PM
Hoping that last part regarding the Occoquan auxiliarily lane is incorrect. Extending the southbound VA-123 onramp to the westbound Prince William Parkway offramp does not really solve the issue of the terrible 4th gp lane merge. A better solution would be for it to continue past the VA-123 interchange and turn into an exit only lane right before the Prince William Parkway, similarly to how the express lanes currently go from 3 to 2 lanes at the same exit. Either way big news!
I was thinking the same thing. Doing an auxiliary lane is a terrible idea. That should tie into that fourth lane. Driver's have a better opportunity to merge left at that point rather than crammed between US 1, the bridge, and VA-123. There could also be better signage if the fourth lane is fully extended. "Exit Only 2 Miles", etc.
The ultimate goal, which is proposed to be studied, should be to widen I-95 to 8 general purpose lanes from the Occoquan River to Fredericksburg, where that fourth lane could tie into the under construction C/D lanes.
No way in hell I-95 gets 8 general purpose lanes all the way to Garrisonville unless either tolls or Transurban is involved. Since the deal to extend the lanes south of Garrisonville to Fredericksburg is different there may be a chance here, but IMO unlikely in the near future. Unfortunately this was VA's best chance to significantly fix the Occoquan bottleneck and it appears as if they failed miserably. No wonder Transurban has no problem with the auxiliarily lane since it likely won't do much to resolve the issue. I swear either the officials think they're fooling everyone or Transurban really is just that much smarter.
An additional lane, in combination with interchange reconfigurations, aux lanes between all exits, tackled by a $1-2 billion project would severely help the corridor. You would have continuously 4 lanes in each direction, plus 5 in each direction between interchanges. Look at I-66 outside the beltway - exactly what's happening right now with a multi-billion dollar project to fix it.
That's exactly what should have happened, but unfortunately since VA was relatively new to P3 deals at the time, it did not and thus a horrific contract was signed that continues to screw over I-95 today. Transurban, a private company looking to make a profit, has zero interest in allowing for VA to freely improve I-95 thereby negatively affecting their collected toll revenue. The only options for VA are to either make more deals, pay compensation, or do nothing. Glad they at least got the I-66 project right.
Judging by the way VDOT likes to operate, I think they've selected the do nothing option. Ahh, US 301 is a nice road however.
You posted enough strawman to pose a fire hazard.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 07:27:41 PM
They screwed up badly with the Transurban deal. I-95 has been a mess for years, and they thought HO/T lanes would solve all the issues.
The reversible roadway extension and widening to 3 lanes on part of it, has been planned since the 1990s. -Nobody- said that "HO/T lanes would solve all the issues". It was one project to help traffic conditions.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 07:27:41 PM
They should've factored additional GP lanes in. The argument that "new general purpose lanes won't help"
Nobody said that, in fact they built that type project from Newington to Woodbridge.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 07:27:41 PM
isn't true when traffic counts are over 200,000.
In another highways forum posters in the S.F. Bay area say there are hundreds of miles of freeways at that volume level and on no more than six lanes and with the concomitant severe congestion. One of the problems in rapidly growing major metros.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 07:27:41 PM
An additional lane, in combination with interchange reconfigurations, aux lanes between all exits, tackled by a $1-2 billion project would severely help the corridor. You would have continuously 4 lanes in each direction, plus 5 in each direction between interchanges.
Since 2000 there has been $5 billion in I-95 expansion projects between Fredericksburg and just across the Potomac River at MD-414, and that includes the ones now underway. I-495 supplements I-95, so let's include the $2 billion I-495 HOT lanes project.
That is $7 billion. Now you are demanding another billion or two and you want it now.
Money doesn't grow on trees.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 07:27:41 PM
Look at I-66 outside the beltway - exactly what's happening right now with a multi-billion dollar project to fix it.
A PPTA project with tolled express lanes. So let's work toward getting one to widen I-95 to 4 lanes each way between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg. Maybe all the way down to I-295.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 09:17:15 PM
The reversible roadway extension and widening to 3 lanes on part of it, has been planned since the 1990s. -Nobody- said that "HO/T lanes would solve all the issues". It was one project to help traffic conditions.
Signing a poor deal with a private investor who controls the Express Lanes, and prohibits VDOT from widening the general purpose lanes without compensation. VDOT has wanted to widen the parts to 8 lanes recently (most notably from VA-123 to VA-234 a few years back), but have not advanced due to this. You can argue all day about how P3's are amazing and they work great, but accept the reality - there's issues with them, and this along with the ERC deal in Norfolk that VDOT got into were poor deals.
The reversible roadway extension and widening to 3 lanes was likely to be done with HOV lanes and under VDOT, not under some foreign company that now can prevent I-95 from being widened without VDOT paying them some more over the billions they're going to collect from HO/T tolls.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 09:17:15 PM
Since 2000 there has been $5 billion in I-95 expansion projects between Fredericksburg and just across the Potomac River at MD-414, and that includes the ones now underway. I-495 supplements I-95, so let's include the $2 billion I-495 HOT lanes project.
That is $7 billion. Now you are demanding another billion or two and you want it now.
Money doesn't grow on trees.
A good $3 or $4 billion of that comes from HO/T lanes and P3s. And just about all of the billions (in public funding and tax dollars) you mentioned have happened north the Occoquan River. South of the Occoquan, there's been small projects to redo interchanges, and off the main highway work, but I've not seen one additional lane added to I-95 since the 80s using tax dollars or public funds. The I-95 Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing Project for $132 million is the first, and while that's a good step, it's nowhere close to what's needed.
You might argue "$5 or $7 billion has been spent", but only about $1 or $2 billion comes from public funds and tax dollars, and have all happened north of the Occoquan, or on interchange improvements that don't affect the mainline of I-95 itself. It's a poor argument to make.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 09:17:15 PM
A PPTA project with tolled express lanes. So let's work toward getting one to widen I-95 to 4 lanes each way between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg. Maybe all the way down to I-295.
Correct. We already have the tolled express lanes, let's add more general capacity. A 4th FREE lane from Woodbridge to Fredericksburg, and eventually to I-295. Stop pushing for more toll lanes, there's already enough of them, and it's been proven by the existing ones that it does not do much in the way to enhance capacity.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 09:17:15 PM
A PPTA project with tolled express lanes. So let's work toward getting one to widen I-95 to 4 lanes each way between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg. Maybe all the way down to I-295.
Correct. We already have the tolled express lanes, let's add more general capacity. A 4th FREE lane from Woodbridge to Fredericksburg, and eventually to I-295. Stop pushing for more toll lanes, there's already enough of them, and it's been proven by the existing ones that it does not do much in the way to enhance capacity.
The question is how the hell does VDOT do that? There is absolutely no current funding for it. Plus if they were serious about adding a 4th lane on I-95 south of the Occoquan, then one would think that they would have quickly jumped on the opportunity to fund projects that would have added a 4th lane on I-95 in both directions between Exit 130(VA-3) and Exit 126(US-1/US-17) and northbound between Exit 133(US-17) and Exit 136(Centrepoint Parkway). While there's still a chance these projects get funded under the final CTB resolution in June, it appears highly unlikely.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 09:17:15 PM
The reversible roadway extension and widening to 3 lanes on part of it, has been planned since the 1990s. -Nobody- said that "HO/T lanes would solve all the issues". It was one project to help traffic conditions.
Signing a poor deal with a private investor who controls the Express Lanes, and prohibits VDOT from widening the general purpose lanes without compensation. VDOT has wanted to widen the parts to 8 lanes recently (most notably from VA-123 to VA-234 a few years back), but have not advanced due to this. You can argue all day about how P3's are amazing and they work great, but accept the reality - there's issues with them, and this along with the ERC deal in Norfolk that VDOT got into were poor deals.
I only see them as one funding tool, and those projects would not have gotten built if not for these PPTA projects. And once again, Transurban would have to prove that their revenue would be adversely affected before any compensation would be tendered.
The mistake with the ERT tunnels project was with not utilizing the PPTA proposal in 2000 when it would have cost $600 million. By waiting as long as they did after the massive increases in the cost of highway construction from 2005 onward, it cost $1.4 billion for the construction, meaning much higher tolls.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
The reversible roadway extension and widening to 3 lanes was likely to be done with HOV lanes and under VDOT,
See above, no they weren't going to be built any time soon, nor were they going to allow tolled SOVs which helps get more traffic out of the G/P lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
You might argue "$5 or $7 billion has been spent", but only about $1 or $2 billion comes from public funds and tax dollars, and have all happened north of the Occoquan, or on interchange improvements that don't affect the mainline of I-95 itself. It's a poor argument to make.
I count $5 billion in public funding and tax dollars, out of the $7 billion.
This what "happened north of the Occoquan" is what is a poor argument to make, for several reasons, mainly addressing the most critical problems first. Do you think that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project should have not yet been built? The Springfield Interchange Project?
A billion will be spent for the two Fredericksburg C-D projects and the reversible extension to Falmouth.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
Correct. We already have the tolled express lanes, let's add more general capacity. A 4th FREE lane from Woodbridge to Fredericksburg, and eventually to I-295. Stop pushing for more toll lanes, there's already enough of them, and it's been proven by the existing ones that it does not do much in the way to enhance capacity.
A 4th lane only adds half the peak capacity as does a 2-lane roadway, and 1/3 that of a 3-lane roadway. If you have a way to fund that without tolls, without using the Herr Krugmann school of economics, I would like to hear it, but you need to face the facts that tolls are part of today's highway funding toolbox.
Texas has 28 tollroads, is building more, and has a fine highway system overall. Ditto for Florida, almost the same number of tollroads, and both states have fine economies.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
The mistake with the ERT tunnels project was with not utilizing the PPTA proposal in 2000 when it would have cost $600 million. By waiting as long as they did after the massive increases in the cost of highway construction from 2005 onward, it cost $1.4 billion for the construction, meaning much higher tolls.
Elizabeth River Crossings had some major issues once the tunnel opened - poor operations, people getting toll violation fees of thousands of dollars, I believe there were lawsuits filed on them as well. They've finally -somewhat- cleaned up their act, but they started the first few years of operations pretty rough.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
See above, no they weren't going to be built any time soon, nor were they going to allow tolled SOVs which helps get more traffic out of the G/P lanes.
It's funny, the old HOV lanes were only HOV during rush hour. All other times, they were free, which traffic does frequently today occur during those off-peak times, especially at the Occoquan River. During off-peak hours, SOV vehicles could use the reversible lanes for free, and bypass that congestion. Switching it to 24/7 had an impact. A lot of the vehicles chose now not to pay, and sit in that congestion. So in reality, the HO/T conversion to 24/7 on the existing reversible lanes only added back more traffic, to suffer the brand new poorly designed merge at the Occoquan River.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
This what "happened north of the Occoquan" is what is a poor argument to make, for several reasons, mainly addressing the most critical problems first. Do you think that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project should have not yet been built? The Springfield Interchange Project?
The Springfield Interchange and Woodrow Wilson Bridge projects were vital projects and severely helped. They both wrapped up over ten years ago, now it's time to move south.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
A billion will be spent for the two Fredericksburg C-D projects and the reversible extension to Falmouth.
The Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project will cost $132 million in public funding and tax dollars. The reversible extension to Falmouth and the Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing is being done under the P3 and funded privately with no tax dollars. Similar to the other reversible extensions, plus all the HO/T lanes on I-495.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
A 4th lane only adds half the peak capacity as does a 2-lane roadway, and 1/3 that of a 3-lane roadway.
You need to check something here. The HO/T lane extension helped to some extent, however it only benefits those who use it the most, and everybody else slightly. A new, free lane in each direction would alleviate traffic more, because there would be obviously more people to use the new lane. Traffic runs smoothly north of the Occoquan when it's 4 lanes in each direction, also on I-495. A combination of the HO/T lanes and 4 GP lanes in each direction help the most, as proven by my above two examples.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
Texas has 28 tollroads, is building more, and has a fine highway system overall. Ditto for Florida, almost the same number of tollroads, and both states have fine economies.
The only areas in Texas which have toll roads is in the Austin, Dallas / Fort Worth, and Houston metros. The difference there is the way the roads work. Texas does highways differently if you didn't know - frontage roads on both sides, with slip on and off ramps, with u-turn points at the interchanges. Most of the roads are built strictly with this frontage road layout with a large median. In the future, freeway lanes with overpasses / slip off-on ramps are built, and yes those sometimes are tolled. The frontage road with the traffic signals is always free. There's also other times, like Beltway 99 in Houston, it's all being constructed on new location. And it's still being built with new frontage roads to provide a free alternative in the same corridor. But no pre-existing highways are re-tolled or have tolls added to them, with the exception of HO/T lanes, and those also come with new GP capacity every time, or were existing HOV lanes converted to part time HO/T lanes. An example is the Katy Freeway outside Houston - new GP + HO/T capacity.
San Antonio has a massive freeway network - and no toll roads whatsoever. They're doing massive expansion projects on Loop 1604 from 2 lanes in each direction to 4 GP lanes + 1 HOV lane in each direction, along with upgrading U.S. 281 north of San Antonio to freeway by constructing new frontage roads, and freeway mainline in the middle. These projects are costing billions, and many of them were originally considered for tolls, along with HO/T lanes on I-35. All of the toll plans have dropped because new public / tax money is coming up, and these projects are advancing without any use of tolls. The I-35 HO/T lanes have been canceled as well.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
The mistake with the ERT tunnels project was with not utilizing the PPTA proposal in 2000 when it would have cost $600 million. By waiting as long as they did after the massive increases in the cost of highway construction from 2005 onward, it cost $1.4 billion for the construction, meaning much higher tolls.
Elizabeth River Crossings had some major issues once the tunnel opened - poor operations, people getting toll violation fees of thousands of dollars, I believe there were lawsuits filed on them as well. They've finally -somewhat- cleaned up their act, but they started the first few years of operations pretty rough.
A mega project that was completed on-time and on-budget, and with no problems with the tunnel or highways. Being able to do that routinely is very important, and VDOT and other Virginia highway authorities do just that.
Worldwide it has been a joke with so many mega-projects being way over budget and/or way behind schedule.
The tolling management problems were a separate matter from the engineering and construction of the facility.
And how nice it would have been to have ERT Tunnels project completed in 2004 for that much lower cost. Then other major projects could have been funded and moved forward.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
It's funny, the old HOV lanes were only HOV during rush hour. All other times, they were free, which traffic does frequently today occur during those off-peak times, especially at the Occoquan River. During off-peak hours, SOV vehicles could use the reversible lanes for free, and bypass that congestion. Switching it to 24/7 had an impact. A lot of the vehicles chose now not to pay, and sit in that congestion. So in reality, the HO/T conversion to 24/7 on the existing reversible lanes only added back more traffic, to suffer the brand new poorly designed merge at the Occoquan River.
The tolls are low during the off-peak hours, and plenty of people use them, especially when there is congestion on the GP lanes, and many motorists have apps to apprise them of congestion problems ahead.
During peak hours SOV and HOV-2 can use the express lanes while previously they were prohibited. Overall many more vehicles are removed from the GP lanes than in the HOV days.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
The Springfield Interchange and Woodrow Wilson Bridge projects were vital projects and severely helped. They both wrapped up over ten years ago, now it's time to move south.
Incorrect. WWB was completed in 2013 and SIIP Phase 8 in 2012.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
A billion will be spent for the two Fredericksburg C-D projects and the reversible extension to Falmouth.
The Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project will cost $132 million in public funding and tax dollars. The reversible extension to Falmouth and the Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing is being done under the P3 and funded privately with no tax dollars. Similar to the other reversible extensions, plus all the HO/T lanes on I-495.
The Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project will also cost $132 million and it will not be tolled. Construction begins in 2020 so it was fair enough to include that. And $700 million for the reversible extension.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
A 4th lane only adds half the peak capacity as does a 2-lane roadway, and 1/3 that of a 3-lane roadway.
You need to check something here. The HO/T lane extension helped to some extent, however it only benefits those who use it the most, and everybody else slightly.
"Baloney". In peak hours it handles nearly the maximum freeway volume of 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour, and is dynamically priced to keep traffic moving freely. On 2 lanes that is nearly 4,000 vehicles per hour that are not in the GP lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
A new, free lane in each direction would alleviate traffic more, because there would be obviously more people to use the new lane.
If that can be afforded, otherwise a new tolled express lane (not HOT) in each direction would work just as well.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
Traffic runs smoothly north of the Occoquan when it's 4 lanes in each direction, also on I-495. A combination of the HO/T lanes and 4 GP lanes in each direction help the most, as proven by my above two examples.
What examples? Traffic on I-95 in Fairfax County and on I-495 does not "run smoothly" at all times by any stretch. Having 4 GP lanes each way helps but is not a panacea.
What would make a real difference in the Washington area would be a tolled outer beltway or tolled western bypass freeway, like what Houston has with the Sam Houston Tollway, rather than focus only on upgrading I-95 and I-495. The Western Transportation Corridor would have connected to I-95 near Falmouth at Exit 136 Centerport Parkway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
Texas has 28 tollroads, is building more, and has a fine highway system overall. Ditto for Florida, almost the same number of tollroads, and both states have fine economies.
The only areas in Texas which have toll roads is in the Austin, Dallas / Fort Worth, and Houston metros.
And 2/3 of the state population lives there, in a very large population state. Signalized frontage roads are no substitute or alternate for freeway capacity, they have 1/3 the per lane capacity, and 1/2 to 1/3 the average speeds. Doesn't matter if a tollroad is on new location, it is a major highway facility nonetheless.
The fact is that states like Texas and Florida are very heavily tolled with highways built long after the "turnpike era" of the still very heavily tolled northeastern states. We can add Oklahoma with its extensive system of tollroads.
I don't know why you hate tollroads and HOT lanes so much, they are simply part of the toolbox that some states are using in conjunction with tax funded projects, and you can't use an argument that it is hurting their economies, because those states have fine economies.
Maybe you are gunning for huge tax increases for highways? The states and metro transport authorities have done plenty of that over the last 20 years.
The federal road taxes have not been raised since 1992. If you want large increases in tax funded toll-free highway projects, that is where to focus your advocacy.
The few major underwater tunnels financed toll-free in the U.S. were funded under the original Interstate system that provided 90% FHWA funding. The only way to restore being able to do something like that is to increase the federal road taxes to something like 1992 levels + inflation since then.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
The tolls are low during the off-peak hours
Incorrect. Frequently, starting around 2 or 2:30, there's a backup that's formed near the Occoquan River, and tolls are not cheap at that point. In the past, SB HOV lanes ran from 3:30 - 6PM. At 2 or 2:30, you could hop in the lanes SOV, bypass the congestion, and pay no toll or violate HOV.
On weekends, same deal. There's congestion, and SOV could bypass it in the HOV lanes without a toll or violate HOV.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
and plenty of people use them, especially when there is congestion on the GP lanes, and many motorists have apps to apprise them of congestion problems ahead.
Correct. HOV 3+ make up the majority, plus the few rich people who feel like paying $20 one-way to avoid congestion. The lanes in DC on I-95 and I-495 are commonly referred to as "Lexus Lanes", and that name implies it all. What do you say to the daily motorists who cannot afford $1,000 a month to have a smooth ride daily? More toll lanes, or no GP improvements? Get into a carpool or suck it up?
"The article also stated that 40 percent of the drivers using the express toll lanes make more than $100,000 a year and the typical express user pays for house-cleaning services and grocery delivery. Furthermore, the article said, "about one-third of those users said they don't mind the tolls because their employers pick up the bill." Certainly, the typical drivers on these highways do not make more than $100,000 or have their toll expenses paid by their employers. Rather, it is the subset of drivers who are wealthier or have access to special payments who can afford to use the express toll lanes. This is precisely why these expensive toll roads (ranging from about $6 to $46) are considered Lexus lanes."https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/virginias-lexus-lanes-deserve-their-nickname/2018/09/26/4eeb182e-c101-11e8-9f4f-a1b7af255aa5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c5a97f9e6887
And I know you're going to throw the standard argument out there - it's a newspaper article and it's usually wrong. This term and the fact that the average user cannot afford the Express Lanes is factual, and cannot be disputed as much as you want to believe.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
The Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project will also cost $132 million and it will not be tolled. Construction begins in 2020 so it was fair enough to include that. And $700 million for the reversible extension.
The Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing will not be tolled itself, but money collected from tolls on the HO/T lane extension are paying for it, it's a privately funded project. I've said it before, but it seems to slip past your head, the $700 million HO/T extension is being funded privately and via tolls.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
"Baloney". In peak hours it handles nearly the maximum freeway volume of 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour, and is dynamically priced to keep traffic moving freely. On 2 lanes that is nearly 4,000 vehicles per hour that are not in the GP lanes.
"peak hours". There's plenty of times off-peak there's recurring delay due to only being 3 lanes wide carrying 200,000 AADT. Not to mention, a majority of that traffic is HOV anyways, or people who can afford a $20 toll or see that more beneficial than waiting in traffic. There's no way me, or the majority of I-95 traffic would rather pay $20 than sit in traffic. We want improvements that benefit
everybody, not just those hopping in the lanes HOV or paying the expensive tolls cause they can afford it.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
If that can be afforded, otherwise a new tolled express lane (not HOT) in each direction would work just as well.
A strictly tolled lane that wouldn't include HOV? No shot. That proposal is horrible, majority of the traffic on the Express Lanes is HOV, and if you restricted that only to toll payers, those lanes would quickly bankrupt.
Also, we don't need more toll lanes. Just because tolls are there doesn't mean we should just blow the shot for future funding for GP widening by committing to tolled lanes that would quickly bankrupt.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
What examples? Traffic on I-95 in Fairfax County and on I-495 does not "run smoothly" at all times by any stretch. Having 4 GP lanes each way helps but is not a panacea.
It's certainly better than I-95, that's for sure.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
What would make a real difference in the Washington area would be a tolled outer beltway or tolled western bypass freeway, like what Houston has with the Sam Houston Tollway, rather than focus only on upgrading I-95 and I-495. The Western Transportation Corridor would have connected to I-95 near Falmouth at Exit 136 Centerport Parkway.
I completely agree. The only issue is everybody is so focused on fixing I-95, mainly because the congestion on there is caused by commuter traffic. If there was more thru-traffic choking things up, I'd understand more. Sam Houston Tollway is a bad example IMHO because it's mainly a commuter corridor, a better one is like SH-130 around Austin. 80 miles long, 85 MPH. A beautiful road, rural, no congestion, nothing. Beats I-35 any day.
For a Washington Bypass however, I'd recommend following U.S. 301 to the east, and starting south of congestion-prone Fredericksburg. Starting at Fredericksburg heading north, is a major commuter road. Long-distance traffic would leave I-95 before there on the eastern toll bypass paralleling U.S. 301.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
Doesn't matter if a tollroad is on new location, it is a major highway facility nonetheless.
Tolling an existing highway directly impacts people, constructing a whole new facility tolled only offers new options, and doesn't place burden on people. Also, adding tolled capacity usually means there won't be free improvements anytime soon, as seen by I-95. The first leg of I-95 got widened to 4 lanes when there was HOV, but as soon as HO/T took affect and Transurban ran the show, no other improvements since.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
I don't know why you hate tollroads and HOT lanes so much
1. A lot of people share the same opinion as me, and would rather pay more in taxes to get these improvements free. And currently, there's higher taxes up there, and you pay tolls. Not the average driver can afford as I've said above.
2. I don't HO/T lanes, for instance I do support them on I-95 and I-495, and agree with the proposed extensions south and north to Maryland, however Virginia has been so focused on HO/T lanes, HO/T lanes, HO/T lanes, and haven't done any free improvements to the entire corridor. Only more HO/T lanes, HO/T lanes, or tolls. I don't see a balance of tax spending and tolls with this. There's been billions spent on HO/T lanes, and only about $200 million for actual GP improvements
south of the Occoquan River. None of the GP improvements have been extensive either, only spot improvements like Fredericksburg, which is needed, but there needs to be more, spanning up the Occoquan. Hundreds of people would agree with me, this isn't just me.
What about the state's without tolls? The metro areas without tolls? I've mentioned San Antonio, a large population center with lots of freeways, none of which tolled. You yourself have said in the past San Antonio is a bigger area than Austin, which does have toll roads.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
The federal road taxes have not been raised since 1992. If you want large increases in tax funded toll-free highway projects, that is where to focus your advocacy.
I think many people would rather pay slightly more in taxes and know that roads would begin to get done without tolling. I agree with this. There was a tax increase in Hampton Roads to pay for the I-64 Peninsula Widening, I-264 Interchange Improvements, I-64 High Rise Bridge, HRBT Expansion, and that's over $6 billion in improvements, all tax or publicly funded.
I will cut to the chase with a couple basic important (to me) points.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 05:42:43 PM
HOV 3+ make up the majority, plus the few rich people who feel like paying $20 one-way to avoid congestion. The lanes in DC on I-95 and I-495 are commonly referred to as "Lexus Lanes", and that name implies it all. What do you say to the daily motorists who cannot afford $1,000 a month to have a smooth ride daily? More toll lanes, or no GP improvements? Get into a carpool or suck it up?
"The article also stated that 40 percent of the drivers using the express toll lanes make more than $100,000 a year and the typical express user pays for house-cleaning services and grocery delivery. Furthermore, the article said, "about one-third of those users said they don't mind the tolls because their employers pick up the bill." Certainly, the typical drivers on these highways do not make more than $100,000 or have their toll expenses paid by their employers. Rather, it is the subset of drivers who are wealthier or have access to special payments who can afford to use the express toll lanes. This is precisely why these expensive toll roads (ranging from about $6 to $46) are considered Lexus lanes."
And I know you're going to throw the standard argument out there - it's a newspaper article and it's usually wrong. This term and the fact that the average user cannot afford the Express Lanes is factual, and cannot be disputed as much as you want to believe.
Well, it -is- a letter to the editor and not a newspaper article ... are you aware that $100,000 per year is not a high salary in the Washington metro area market? Certainly not "wealthy". Between the high cost of living and the huge number of professional level jobs, it is not a high salary. Nevertheless, according to that letter, 60% make less than that, and it is correct that many employers in the Washington area provide subsidies for things like Metrorail and Metrobus trips, and for commuter tolls -- it is a fact of life there especially for federal civil service employees and federal contract employees.
A Senior IT Specialist in the Richmond market makes that salary on average, even with its much lower cost of living and generally much lower salaries.
"Lexus Lanes" is just a cute alliteration. Lexus is a very nice car but as Japan's Buick (Buick has also been called America's Lexus) it is not that big of a deal to own one, especially if you live and work in Washington metro.
If indeed the peak capacity is mostly taken by HOV-3+, then not very many SOV or HOV-2 would be able to use them in the first place. The important thing is that the capacity is being well used.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
"Baloney".
Thick too!!!
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 05:42:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
The federal road taxes have not been raised since 1992. If you want large increases in tax funded toll-free highway projects, that is where to focus your advocacy.
I think many people would rather pay slightly more in taxes and know that roads would begin to get done without tolling. I agree with this. There was a tax increase in Hampton Roads to pay for the I-64 Peninsula Widening, I-264 Interchange Improvements, I-64 High Rise Bridge, HRBT Expansion, and that's over $6 billion in improvements, all tax or publicly funded.
It wouldn't be just slightly more in taxes ... it would be a lot more. Hey, I would be in favor of adding an untolled GP lane each way on I-95 between VA-123 and I-295, and if a way can be found I would surely support it.
Raise the federal road user taxes, considerably.
Quote from: BeltwayLexus is a very nice car but as Japan's Buick (Buick has also been called America's Lexus)
We always called them the "expensive Toyota". Just like Audi is the "expensive VW", Infiniti is the "expensive Nissan", and so on...
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2019, 08:06:36 AM
Quote from: BeltwayLexus is a very nice car but as Japan's Buick (Buick has also been called America's Lexus)
We always called them the "expensive Toyota". Just like Audi is the "expensive VW", Infiniti is the "expensive Nissan", and so on...
Plus there plenty of studies that document the benefits of HOT lanes in general, and that of HOT lanes over HOV lanes, including addressing the argument that they only benefit the "wealthy".
HOT Lanes, Cool Facts
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12031/fhwahop12027/index.htm
Excerpts:
What about Equity? Are HOT Lanes More of a Burden on Lower-Income Drivers?
Research on I-394, SR 167, and I-15 indicates that drivers of all socioeconomic backgrounds support HOT lanes. In fact, data from the San Diego Association of Governments indicate that the lowest income group expressed stronger support from the project than the highest income group. Research shows that people of all income levels support HOT lanes. Users of all incomes see the value in having a reliable trip when they need it. A 2004-2006 longitudinal panel survey of I-394 residents in Minnesota found support levels at over 60 percent for the congestion priced HOT lane. This number varies only slightly when sorted by income levels, gender, and education levels, suggesting that the arrangement is perceived as equitable. I-15 in San Diego had a 77 percent approval rating after opening with nominal differences between high and low income users. Specific focus groups of low-income travelers in Washington found that low income drivers are typically as supportive, if not more supportive, of the HOT lanes concept than other drivers.
. . . . .
The operating projects enjoy support from both users and non-users. While most people don't use the HOT lane every day, research shows that travelers like having a choice in their travel options. On I-25 in Denver, 62 percent of survey respondents say they use the Express Lanes because it saves time. Likewise in Houston, focus group respondents thought that using the HOT lane saved them as much as 50 percent of total commute travel time. Reliability is also often cited as a benefit of the HOT lane. In San Diego and Miami, users there want the projects expanded.
. . . . .
HOT lanes provide mobility options for individual drivers while encouraging the use of transit and carpooling. Tolls collected from HOT lanes can supplement the operations, enforcement and maintenance costs for the facilities. Even buses benefit from HOT lanes–research shows that communities with HOT lanes are often able to increase transit service as was the case with I-15 in San Diego. Solo drivers know they can count on getting where they need to be on time.
For example, Minneapolis has increased the number of vehicles using the I-394 MnPASS lanes by 33 percent since the facility's opening in 2005 without degrading transit and HOV use. Furthermore, travel speeds of 50 to 55 mph have been maintained for 95 percent of the time in the lanes. Denver originally projected 500 toll payers during the peak hour travel along I-25 but in fact achieved 1,400 in the first year of operation. Use of the I-25 HOT lanes has grown by almost 18 percent since the HOT lanes opened in 2006 and the lanes remain uncongested. Additionally, transit ridership in the HOT lanes has remained high.
With certain companies subsidizing tolls for commuters, that makes it seem almost like they're paying the government to ensure that their employees don't have to sit in traffic on the way in to work.
Quote from: vdeane on January 31, 2019, 01:22:45 PM
With certain companies subsidizing tolls for commuters, that makes it seem almost like they're paying the government to ensure that their employees don't have to sit in traffic on the way in to work.
It is a benefit that helps attract and retain employees, helps them financially as well as in commute time.
Many metros have similar benefits. The last 20 years that I worked in the VDOT Central Office I paid nothing for transportation to and from work. I had a VDOT-issued passcard that provided free rides on the GRTC transit bus. I walked 1/2 mile to and from the bus stop so my car remained in my driveway. The bus stopped right in front of the VDOT Central Office. Door-to-door commute time was typically about 30 minutes, the trip was 7 miles and of that 5 miles was on freeway, it is an express bus.
FHWA provides funding for an incentive system to state DOTs that provides employee subsidies for things like bus transit, rail transit, car pooling and van pooling, and maybe for tolls but I am not sure about that.
Many private sector employers have similar type employee benefits.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 05:44:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 31, 2019, 01:22:45 PM
With certain companies subsidizing tolls for commuters, that makes it seem almost like they're paying the government to ensure that their employees don't have to sit in traffic on the way in to work.
It is a benefit that helps attract and retain employees, helps them financially as well as in commute time.
Many metros have similar benefits. The last 20 years that I worked in the VDOT Central Office I paid nothing for transportation to and from work. I had a VDOT-issued passcard that provided free rides on the GRTC transit bus. I walked 1/2 mile to and from the bus stop so my car remained in my driveway. The bus stopped right in front of the VDOT Central Office. Door-to-door commute time was typically about 30 minutes, the trip was 7 miles and of that 5 miles was on freeway, it is an express bus.
FHWA provides funding for an incentive system to state DOTs that provides employee subsidies for things like bus transit, rail transit, car pooling and van pooling, and maybe for tolls but I am not sure about that.
Many private sector employers have similar type employee benefits.
I've heard similar stories in Downtown Norfolk with the lightrail (it actually is useful in Downtown) for government employers. They do have certain gov't offices in downtown.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 05:44:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 31, 2019, 01:22:45 PM
With certain companies subsidizing tolls for commuters, that makes it seem almost like they're paying the government to ensure that their employees don't have to sit in traffic on the way in to work.
It is a benefit that helps attract and retain employees, helps them financially as well as in commute time.
Many metros have similar benefits. The last 20 years that I worked in the VDOT Central Office I paid nothing for transportation to and from work. I had a VDOT-issued passcard that provided free rides on the GRTC transit bus. I walked 1/2 mile to and from the bus stop so my car remained in my driveway. The bus stopped right in front of the VDOT Central Office. Door-to-door commute time was typically about 30 minutes, the trip was 7 miles and of that 5 miles was on freeway, it is an express bus.
FHWA provides funding for an incentive system to state DOTs that provides employee subsidies for things like bus transit, rail transit, car pooling and van pooling, and maybe for tolls but I am not sure about that.
Many private sector employers have similar type employee benefits.
Transit I've heard of, but not tolls (aside from the Thruway Authority, that is - and the Thruway no longer offers that).
Quote from: vdeane on January 31, 2019, 07:55:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 05:44:05 PM
FHWA provides funding for an incentive system to state DOTs that provides employee subsidies for things like bus transit, rail transit, car pooling and van pooling, and maybe for tolls but I am not sure about that.
Many private sector employers have similar type employee benefits.
Transit I've heard of, but not tolls (aside from the Thruway Authority, that is - and the Thruway no longer offers that).
I'm sure some do, obviously it would require a tollway oriented on the downtown in the first place.
The editorial on the toll lanes also interprets the WP article for their own viewpoint, leaving out such facts that a number of toll users are not everyday (only 5% do) and use the lanes on specific occasions where a more predictable travel time is desired (and in fact the lanes were heavily advertised for this purpose in advance of their opening).
The fact that tolls reach into the $40 range on 95/495 is a red herring because of this: almost nobody pays the high end amounts which is the purpose of the tolls being that high - the intent is to dissuade more people from getting in the lanes which are almost always because of a wreck within the lanes. My civil service entity does not reimburse tolls but does participate in transhare to encourage people to use mass transit and not drive in (in fact they confiscate your parking permit as a condition of receiving transhare). It is faster to drive and the rail service doesn't well suit my work schedule so I choose to drive the 62 miles from Fredericksburg to Bethesda.
I just returned from San Diego and I used the I-15 Express lanes on my way out of town. Because they are HOV-2 out there I rode for free. For single drivers, you can pay to use them as well. The toll is congestion based too, but caps out at $8 (entire length is around 20 miles or so). The wrinkle is that after it caps out at $8 it will then go to a stage where it is illegal for more single drivers to enter the lanes. This is how they are keeping the lanes from getting too crowded for free flow.
The newly announced projects will help with some specific things but not necessary the worst things needing addressing:
1. The HOT lane extension to Fredericksburg coupled with the Rappahannock River projects should vastly improve the condition of the southbound interstate which backs up from VA 3 all the way back to the Stafford Airport on most days
2. The Opitz Blvd direct ramps with the HOT lanes will improve the mainline I-95 southbound Dale City area because the flyover from the HOT lanes to mainline to use Dale Blvd will have fewer vehicles (becuase many will go direct to Opitz Blvd instead) and the weave/merge area of the flyover and mainline 95 is a frequent backup and/or accident point.
3. The auxilliary lane between VA 123 and VA 294 is disappointing because it won't improve the worst part of the bottleneck at 123 but it will improve the backup on mainline 95 that frequently occurs with traffic exiting onto VA 294 backing up in a queue that spills into the non-exiting lanes. Extending the 4th lane to VA 294 would indeed do more to relieve traffic but would definitely be more expensive (bridge over old VA 253 has to be widened whereas it does not for the auxillary lane extension). It would definitely take some $ away from Transurban because a fair number of people get into the toll lanes at Exit 161 and get right back off at VA 123 to bypass the merges from US 1 NB ramp and the lane drop. The toll to do this maneuver ranges $3-7 during afternoon rush.
4. The 495 express lane extension to Maryland will help the Outer Loop immediately a little bit and even more once a new Legion Bridge is built. The inner loop won't see a lot of benefit until 495 is expanded to the 270 split in Maryland
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 01, 2019, 03:17:53 PM
The editorial on the toll lanes also interprets the WP article for their own viewpoint, leaving out such facts that a number of toll users are not everyday (only 5% do) and use the lanes on specific occasions where a more predictable travel time is desired (and in fact the lanes were heavily advertised for this purpose in advance of their opening).
I drive straight thru the Washington area about 5 times a year on trips that are in peak hours and are time valuable. It is a no-brainer to use the HOT lanes on both I-95 and I-495, whatever the cost. Surely there are lots of intermittent users like this that help fill the HOT lanes during peak hours and remove themselves from the GP lanes.
Here are some of the details regarding how the recent HOT Lanes deal came about:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/02/01/how-virginias-billion-deal-with-transurban-came-about-solved-major-i-bottleneck/?utm_term=.2cf7c1e38e5b
QuoteThe project was at the center of months-long negotiations between the state and Transurban, culminating with Tuesday's announcement of a plan that allows the Australian company to expand its toll operations in Northern Virginia and solidify its decade-long relationship with the state.
Transurban will extend the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge and begin construction of an additional 10 miles of the 95 Express Lanes to Fredericksburg. The company also will build a ramp from the 95 Express Lanes at Opitz Boulevard to connect to shopping and medical facilities in Woodbridge.
In exchange, the state will be allowed to build a southbound lane to ease the Occoquan bottleneck. Additionally, Transurban will pay the state a concession of $277 million, a sum announced last year, to help cover the costs of a bridge over the Rappahannock River and other improvements. Officials said Transurban will also give the state a payment of at least $54 million in unanticipated project savings. Virginia officials said that money will be used to help pay for the new Occoquan auxiliary lane.
Transurban had opposed construction of the lane citing a stipulation in its original contract that forbids Virginia from building general travel lanes where Transurban operates high-occupancy toll lanes. If the state had tried to build the extra lane without a deal, it could have potentially faced millions of dollars in penalties.
"The Commonwealth was clear on our position that the construction of an auxiliary lane would not constitute a compensation event. Transurban was clear on its position that this project would constitute a compensation event. In the end, we agreed not to debate the issue over the next several decades," said Amy Wight, Virginia's assistant transportation secretary. "Avoiding what could be a lengthy and costly legal battle is in the interest of both parties and of Virginians, and the decision was to move forward with this specific improvement."
The Virginia Department of Transportation will build and maintain the new southbound lane, a $30-million project that will connect the southbound Route 123 ramp onto I-95 with the off-ramp at westbound Prince William Parkway. It is the smallest of the four projects Gov. Ralph Northam (D) announced Tuesday.
In a Jan. 29 letter, Transurban confirmed to the state that the 95 Express Lanes "will not seek to recover compensation from VDOT in connection with the Occoquan Auxiliary Lane." Jennifer Aument, president of Transurban's North America operations, said in an interview that the company had no intention to seek payment from the state, but was focused on "working out a solution." She said in exchange for allowing VDOT to move forward with the improvement, Transurban was allowed to build the ramp at Opitz Boulevard, where she said customers want better access to the shopping center.
Some more quick thoughts:
1. Transurban will pay the state $277 million in which will go towards the $132 million northbound Rappahannock river crossing project and "other improvements". VA also gets an extra $54 million from project savings. Assuming that VA uses this money to build the $30 million auxiliarily lane, that still leaves $169 million left over. What "other improvements" will that money go towards? The only thing that currently comes to mind is the maybe spending it to build a 4th northbound lane from the end of the northbound RRCP(Exit 133) up to Centreport Pkwy(Exit 136) but I'm not entirely sure. Either way there should be extra money available.
2. Obviously in the original I-95 HOT lanes contract and probably the I-495 one too, it was not discussed whether or not an auxiliarily lane counts as gp lane.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 03:25:36 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 01, 2019, 03:17:53 PM
The editorial on the toll lanes also interprets the WP article for their own viewpoint, leaving out such facts that a number of toll users are not everyday (only 5% do) and use the lanes on specific occasions where a more predictable travel time is desired (and in fact the lanes were heavily advertised for this purpose in advance of their opening).
I drive straight thru the Washington area about 5 times a year on trips that are in peak hours and are time valuable. It is a no-brainer to use the HOT lanes on both I-95 and I-495, whatever the cost. Surely there are lots of intermittent users like this that help fill the HOT lanes during peak hours and remove themselves from the GP lanes.
I'd rather sit in congestion then pay Transurban $30 one-way for their "convenience". That's just me though. I can afford it, but I'd rather spend that money elsewhere useful. And a lot of the traffic on the HO/T lanes is HOV, not SOV vehicles. And the ones in SOV vehicles are usually the expensive cars, not the average driver. The average drivers are like me, we'll sit in congestion cause we're not going to pay some foreign company a heavy toll to get a quick ride. A lot can afford it, but they actually want to use that money somewhere useful and productive.
And if they really want to help traffic, why not lower it to HOV 2+ as opposed to 3+? It'd surely get more usage. Would they loose some money? If it were up to them fully, it would be tolled lanes, not HO/T. No HOV free.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:02:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 03:25:36 PM
I drive straight thru the Washington area about 5 times a year on trips that are in peak hours and are time valuable. It is a no-brainer to use the HOT lanes on both I-95 and I-495, whatever the cost. Surely there are lots of intermittent users like this that help fill the HOT lanes during peak hours and remove themselves from the GP lanes.
I'd rather sit in congestion then pay Transurban $30 one-way for their "convenience". That's just me though. I can afford it, but I'd rather spend that money elsewhere useful. And a lot of the traffic on the HO/T lanes is HOV, not SOV vehicles. And the ones in SOV vehicles are usually the expensive cars, not the average driver.
Not true, review the FHWA article I posted.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:02:42 PM
The average drivers are like me, we'll sit in congestion cause we're not going to pay some foreign company a heavy toll to get a quick ride. A lot can afford it, but they actually want to use that money somewhere useful and productive.
We live in a global economy, I am not a xenophobe who doesn't want to do business with a company from another country, just to stoke American Pride.
The combined cost for me is usually much less than $30, far less in off-peak hours. For people like me it is worth it; after all I could take the GP lanes if I wanted to. We're talking about 5 thru trips per year, and not the local trips I take there. I am retired and am not wealthy.
Feel free to use whichever lanes you want. Fact is that enough people use the HOT lanes to use all the capacity during peak hours.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:02:42 PM
And if they really want to help traffic, why not lower it to HOV 2+ as opposed to 3+? It'd surely get more usage. Would they loose some money? If it were up to them fully, it would be tolled lanes, not HO/T. No HOV free.
Because they would congest at HOV-2. Because they want to keep car and van pools (HOV-3+) toll free, to encourage the use of car and van pools.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
Not true, review the FHWA article I posted.
That article is at least 10 years old, citing the fact I-495 Express Lanes wasn't even built yet. Agreed, SOV vehicles will use the lanes if the toll is reasonable. 10 years ago, and not on I-95, tolls are likely affordable on those other facilities, or simply more reasonable. $30 on I-95 / I-495 during rush hour or $50 on I-66 one-way is not reasonable. When it's less, there's usually not enough traffic to warrant even paying a toll. Fact is
a lot more SOV drivers
don't pay the tolls. Evidence? Look at the I-95 GP lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
We live in a global economy, I am not a xenophobe who doesn't want to do business with a company from another country, just to stoke American Pride.
I'm not either. I'm just not willing to pay an expensive price for something not even worth that much.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
far less in off-peak hours.
Why would someone waste any money if there's no congestion in the GP lanes? The toll is low when there's no congestion, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to.
I'm not going to tell you how to use your money though, that's your personal decision, not mine. I'm just putting my opinion out there.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
Fact is that enough people use the HOT lanes to use all the capacity during peak hours.
HO/T lanes - have great capacity.
GP lanes - constant congestion
Why do they want to keep adding HO/T lanes, when the GP lanes need relief (and I don't mean more HO/T lanes, we see where they already exist, I-95 is still a huge mess)? Because tax payers don't have to pay for it, and gov't can have someone else do their work. Not seeing any other reason.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
Because they would congest at HOV-2. Because they want to keep car and van pools (HOV-3+) toll free, to encourage the use of car and van pools.
What if you only know one person you work with? Or you do not have the ability to carpool? They assume everybody has access to carpool, which simply isn't true.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:02:42 PM
I'd rather sit in congestion then pay Transurban $30 one-way for their "convenience". That's just me though. I can afford it, but I'd rather spend that money elsewhere useful. And a lot of the traffic on the HO/T lanes is HOV, not SOV vehicles. And the ones in SOV vehicles are usually the expensive cars, not the average driver. The average drivers are like me, we'll sit in congestion cause we're not going to pay some foreign company a heavy toll to get a quick ride. A lot can afford it, but they actually want to use that money somewhere useful and productive.
And if they really want to help traffic, why not lower it to HOV 2+ as opposed to 3+? It'd surely get more usage. Would they loose some money? If it were up to them fully, it would be tolled lanes, not HO/T. No HOV free.
I can afford it (even though I drive a Malibu with 95k miles on it!), and I'd rather spend that
time elsewhere useful. I sat in the pre-express lane traffic slogs for over 15 years so I've had my fill of those...
In the afternoon I drive the entirety of the 495 express lanes plus 95 express lanes south of the beltway 4 days a week. On a normal day that is about $40 for the whole 43 miles leaving Bethesda at 4:30 pm. If there are problems or its near a holiday then it can get to $60. I used to have 2 hr commutes 3 days a week and a 3+ hour commute once every other week. Now I have a 2 hr commute once a month and a 3+ hour commute maybe twice a year. Typically takes 90 minutes now.
In the morning I don't need the 495 express lanes and the 95 lanes run under $10 for the 30 miles at 5:15 am. And i have plenty of company on the highway at that hour.
It is far, far cheaper to do that than to move near my job...
I could shave a few $ if I got up-to-the-second traffic info on which parts of 95 are doing okay on any given day but that requires too much constant triangulation.
Note that it used to be HOV 4 in Northern Virginia originally, so HOV 2 has never been in play on the 95 corridor and dropping it to HOV 2 would cause some choke points north of Lorton.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 01, 2019, 05:51:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:02:42 PM
I'd rather sit in congestion then pay Transurban $30 one-way for their "convenience". That's just me though. I can afford it, but I'd rather spend that money elsewhere useful. And a lot of the traffic on the HO/T lanes is HOV, not SOV vehicles. And the ones in SOV vehicles are usually the expensive cars, not the average driver. The average drivers are like me, we'll sit in congestion cause we're not going to pay some foreign company a heavy toll to get a quick ride. A lot can afford it, but they actually want to use that money somewhere useful and productive.
And if they really want to help traffic, why not lower it to HOV 2+ as opposed to 3+? It'd surely get more usage. Would they loose some money? If it were up to them fully, it would be tolled lanes, not HO/T. No HOV free.
I can afford it (even though I drive a Malibu with 95k miles on it!), and I'd rather spend that time elsewhere useful. I sat in the pre-express lane traffic slogs for over 15 years so I've had my fill of those...
In the afternoon I drive the entirety of the 495 express lanes plus 95 express lanes south of the beltway 4 days a week. On a normal day that is about $40 for the whole 43 miles leaving Bethesda at 4:30 pm. If there are problems or its near a holiday then it can get to $60. I used to have 2 hr commutes 3 days a week and a 3+ hour commute once every other week. Now I have a 2 hr commute once a month and a 3+ hour commute maybe twice a year. Typically takes 90 minutes now.
In the morning I don't need the 495 express lanes and the 95 lanes run under $10 for the 30 miles at 5:15 am. And i have plenty of company on the highway at that hour.
It is far, far cheaper to do that than to move near my job...
I could shave a few $ if I got up-to-the-second traffic info on which parts of 95 are doing okay on any given day but that requires too much constant triangulation.
Note that it used to be HOV 4 in Northern Virginia originally, so HOV 2 has never been in play on the 95 corridor and dropping it to HOV 2 would cause some choke points north of Lorton.
Okay, you can afford it, congratulations. Many cannot. As you note, it's cheaper living down where you are, meaning less wealthy or people who can afford it.
All I'm trying to get out of this is that I-95 GP needs to widened to 8 lanes without any tolls on it. Bring relief for those who cannot pay or chose to use their money elsewhere, not just benefiting the toll payers and carpools, and saying screw the other guys. That's what's happening.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 01, 2019, 03:17:53 PM
The newly announced projects will help with some specific things but not necessary the worst things needing addressing:
1. The HOT lane extension to Fredericksburg coupled with the Rappahannock River projects should vastly improve the condition of the southbound interstate which backs up from VA 3 all the way back to the Stafford Airport on most days
2. The Opitz Blvd direct ramps with the HOT lanes will improve the mainline I-95 southbound Dale City area because the flyover from the HOT lanes to mainline to use Dale Blvd will have fewer vehicles (becuase many will go direct to Opitz Blvd instead) and the weave/merge area of the flyover and mainline 95 is a frequent backup and/or accident point.
3. The auxilliary lane between VA 123 and VA 294 is disappointing because it won't improve the worst part of the bottleneck at 123 but it will improve the backup on mainline 95 that frequently occurs with traffic exiting onto VA 294 backing up in a queue that spills into the non-exiting lanes. Extending the 4th lane to VA 294 would indeed do more to relieve traffic but would definitely be more expensive (bridge over old VA 253 has to be widened whereas it does not for the auxillary lane extension). It would definitely take some $ away from Transurban because a fair number of people get into the toll lanes at Exit 161 and get right back off at VA 123 to bypass the merges from US 1 NB ramp and the lane drop. The toll to do this maneuver ranges $3-7 during afternoon rush.
4. The 495 express lane extension to Maryland will help the Outer Loop immediately a little bit and even more once a new Legion Bridge is built. The inner loop won't see a lot of benefit until 495 is expanded to the 270 split in Maryland
1. Great project, I agree it will help. A full 8-laning would put a better fix in the long run however. I don't anticipate the HO/T lanes relieving much congestion, but it will some.
2. I don't anticipate this doing much traffic relief.
3. No bridge would have to be widened to extend the 4th lane.
4. Again, good project, agreed it will help.
^ 3. No, Mike is correct. If the 4th lane is extended from the lane that ends at the SB off-ramp to 123, the SB bridge over Occoquan Rd (the "old VA 253" he referenced) would need to be widened in order to provide a proper merge taper for the on-ramp from SB 123.
Meanwhile, regarding this:
QuoteWhat if you only know one person you work with? Or you do not have the ability to carpool? They assume everybody has access to carpool, which simply isn't true.
Sounds like you're not familiar with how the slug lines work along I-95. Do you even know what a "slug line" is?
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2019, 08:23:17 PM
^ 3. No, Mike is correct. If the 4th lane is extended from the lane that ends at the SB off-ramp to 123, the SB bridge over Occoquan Rd (the "old VA 253" he referenced) would need to be widened in order to provide a proper merge taper for the on-ramp from SB 123.
The ramp could be modified to still provide enough acceleration before the bridge. This concept would remove only around 200ft of acceleration compared to the existing, and not require a bridge widening -
(https://i.ibb.co/2y7J3Yc/VA123-On-Ramp-Woodbridge.png)
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2019, 08:23:17 PM
Sounds like you're not familiar with how the slug lines work along I-95. Do you even know what a "slug line" is?
Yes, I am aware of slugging. I would rather not have total strangers in my car, thank you. Some people would, that's fine. Not everybody does.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 09:17:37 PM
Yes, I am aware of slugging. I would rather not have total strangers in my car, thank you. Some people would, that's fine. Not everybody does.
You could view the slug lines as opportunities to find and make new friends, and form a regular car pool (occasionally taking on a rider if one of your regulars is unavailable), with people going where you're going.
I don't have personal experience with slugging since I live so close to my former workplace in downtown D.C., and often commuted outside normal rush hours (now I'm retired). But the I-95/395 informal carpools have a long history and reputation for working smoothly and safely, with the customs that have evolved around them to make both drivers and riders comfortable with the arrangement. Certainly enough people are comfortable with carpooling, or commuter buses for something more impersonal, to provide some relief to the people in the regular lanes.
Quote from: oscar on February 01, 2019, 09:47:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 09:17:37 PM
Yes, I am aware of slugging. I would rather not have total strangers in my car, thank you. Some people would, that's fine. Not everybody does.
You could view the slug lines as opportunities to find and make new friends, and form a regular car pool (occasionally taking on a rider if one of your regulars is unavailable), with people going where you're going.
I don't have personal experience with slugging since I live so close to my former workplace in downtown D.C., and often commuted outside normal rush hours (now I'm retired). But the I-95/395 informal carpools have a long history and reputation for working smoothly and safely, with the customs that have evolved around them to make both drivers and riders comfortable with the arrangement. Certainly enough people are comfortable with carpooling, or commuter buses for something more impersonal, to provide some relief to the people in the regular lanes.
I wouldn't be able to say, I'm in Hampton Roads, I don't know too much about them, but I know what they are.
And they do work it seems. Still, it's not convenient for some people either way. People could have different work schedules, have variable work times on a day to day basis, it doesn't always work sometimes. For a fixed job, it can. Still, I think we can all agree I-95 needs improvements in the general purpose lanes.
QuoteThe ramp could be modified to still provide enough acceleration before the bridge.
The way you modified the ramp in your graphic A) does not meet design standards and B ) reduces the speed at which on-ramp traffic would hit the end of the ramp.
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2019, 10:30:15 PM
QuoteThe ramp could be modified to still provide enough acceleration before the bridge.
The way you modified the ramp in your graphic A) does not meet design standards and B ) reduces the speed at which on-ramp traffic would hit the end of the ramp.
My graphic was a sketched up design. Of course a real ramp would meet standards, and could follow this general alignment. 10 foot right shoulders on the ramp, 12 foot lane. The loop ramp just before it has an even smaller acceleration lane, and a low speed.
If you would like, I'll take this in more advance software and sketch it to meet full standards with proper curvature, etc.?
You don't need to widen the overpass to do this.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
Not true, review the FHWA article I posted.
That article is at least 10 years old, citing the fact I-495 Express Lanes wasn't even built yet. Agreed, SOV vehicles will use the lanes if the toll is reasonable. 10 years ago, and not on I-95, tolls are likely affordable on those other facilities, or simply more reasonable. $30 on I-95 / I-495 during rush hour or $50 on I-66 one-way is not reasonable. When it's less, there's usually not enough traffic to warrant even paying a toll. Fact is a lot more SOV drivers don't pay the tolls. Evidence? Look at the I-95 GP lanes.
I'll be glad to find more recent articles, that was just one of the first to come up. MWCOG has done favorable research on the HOT lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
We live in a global economy, I am not a xenophobe who doesn't want to do business with a company from another country, just to stoke American Pride.
I'm not either. I'm just not willing to pay an expensive price for something not even worth that much.
Then don't. Nobody is forcing you to use them. Lots of people find it a product worth the price.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
far less in off-peak hours.
Why would someone waste any money if there's no congestion in the GP lanes? The toll is low when there's no congestion, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to.
I don't know what kind of congestion might be in the next 11 miles of I-495, or in the next 28 miles of I-95, or could occur after I am already on that highway, maybe due to an accident or a truck cargo spill. Even in low traffic periods I have been willing to pay the $1.50 or so for I-495, and the $4.00 or so for I-95. Usually there is no congestion. Money well spent, IMHO.
E-ZPass makes it easy to spend the money, you don't have to stop, you don't have to pull money out of your pocket, it gets automatically added to an account.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
I'm not going to tell you how to use your money though, that's your personal decision, not mine. I'm just putting my opinion out there.
You are the one that is complaining about everybody else's financial decisions.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
Fact is that enough people use the HOT lanes to use all the capacity during peak hours.
HO/T lanes - have great capacity.
GP lanes - constant congestion
Hyperbole. It is not "constant".
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
Why do they want to keep adding HO/T lanes, when the GP lanes need relief (and I don't mean more HO/T lanes, we see where they already exist, I-95 is still a huge mess)? Because tax payers don't have to pay for it, and gov't can have someone else do their work. Not seeing any other reason.
HOT lanes are dynamically priced to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. Maybe the all the GP lanes need to be dynamically priced as well, to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. Even having 4 GP lanes each way will not be a panacea, traffic will grow, maybe they all need to be dynamically priced.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
Because they would congest at HOV-2. Because they want to keep car and van pools (HOV-3+) toll free, to encourage the use of car and van pools.
What if you only know one person you work with? Or you do not have the ability to carpool? They assume everybody has access to carpool, which simply isn't true.
That's baloney any way you slice it.
Nobody is assuming that "everybody has access to carpool". Decisions have to be made, not everybody on the roads gets everything that they want, you probably hate waiting at traffic signals as well.
In this system if you have less than 3 occupants you pay a toll.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
I'll be glad to find more recent articles, that was just one of the first to come up. MWCOG has done favorable research on the HOT lanes.
I don't need your newspaper articles to change my opinion. They won't. Plus, you've said many times in the past newspaper articles are unreliable. That doesn't change when you have something to present either.
All I've seen from all this is the absolute love for constant HO/T, HO/T, HO/T because it doesn't use any taxpayer money, private investors love it, the gov't loves it because they don't have to pay for it, and the wealthy folk and people such as yourself who can afford the tolls and use I-95 / I-495 infrequently. Of course it has positive attention. The real issues are ignored - everything outside the two little lanes in median. Those things that are still heavily congested - they're called the general purpose lanes in case they were forgotten about. 200,000+ AADT, and still only 6 lanes wide, and in an urban area. An 8 lane freeway would still have some issues, but it would significantly relieve congestion for the general purpose travelers. But wait - since it involves the gov't actually spending money and doing work themselves, they push it off constantly. They do little interchange improvements which do barely any help for mainline traffic.
The Fredericksburg project is long overdue and is now finally getting done because it's gotten so bad. A study done by VDOT themselves about a decade ago recommended I-95 got 8 GP lanes, actually it said 3 GP + 2 C/D + 2 HO/T from Fredericksburg to DC. Why aren't they following those recommendations or even considering or studying them more in depth? HO/T lanes take over all the attention. Those little two reversible lanes in the median is what's important. Screw the rest of the folks.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
Then don't. Nobody is forcing you to use them. Lots of people find it a product worth the price.
Okay. You do, I don't, and neither do a majority of drivers.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
I don't know what kind of congestion might be in the next 11 miles of I-495, or in the next 28 miles of I-95, or could occur after I am already on that highway, maybe due to an accident or a truck cargo spill. Even in low traffic periods I have been willing to pay the $1.50 or so for I-495, and the $4.00 or so for I-95. Usually there is no congestion. Money well spent, IMHO.
I'm not going to really input much, because it's your decision and not mine, but if I was driving I would consider that a waste, for me at least. Google Maps and Waze are good real-time traffic reports (better than VDOT), and if there were to be an accident, I'd rather get off the highway, bypass it via surface routes, and hop back on rather than pay a toll. And I certainly wouldn't pay a toll if the route has no traffic. When there's no traffic, that's money lost for nothing. My preference though, you have yours, others have theirs. I don't want to lead this into anything bigger, I'm simply stating my preferences.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
E-ZPass makes it easy to spend the money, you don't have to stop, you don't have to pull money out of your pocket, it gets automatically added to an account.
I don't need your sales pitch on how E-ZPass works, I've owned one for over 10 years.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
You are the one that is complaining about everybody else's financial decisions.
Actually, I'm really not, I'm explaining that a majority of drivers do not opt to drive in the HO/T lanes, and would rather see additional capacity on I-95 GP.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
Hyperbole. It is not "constant".
Drive the general purpose lanes at 2 PM on a Friday afternoon (or any afternoon for that matter) going southbound. No HO/T lanes. Tell me it's not an issue then.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
HOT lanes are dynamically priced to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. Maybe the all the GP lanes need to be dynamically priced as well, to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. Even having 4 GP lanes each way will not be a panacea, traffic will grow, maybe they all need to be dynamically priced.
Yes, let's have an I-66 on this highway. $40 tolls during rush hour, everybody pays, it's a great day. Ooh, let's toll every urban freeway with $40 dynamic tolls.
Maybe in your fantasy universe of toll roads, but it doesn't work that way in reality.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
you probably hate waiting at traffic signals as well.
Not really... rather do that than pay for tolls. So would many other people. This is a proven fact - it's called shunpiking. Or in the terms of HO/T lanes, sticking with the GP lanes despite congestion.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
In this system if you have less than 3 occupants you pay a toll.
...for the reason Transurban gets to have extra money. All of the VDOT owned HO/T lanes currently operate HOV 2+, and the private ones are HOV 3+. Hmm...
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
I'll be glad to find more recent articles, that was just one of the first to come up. MWCOG has done favorable research on the HOT lanes.
I don't need your newspaper articles to change my opinion. They won't. Plus, you've said many times in the past newspaper articles are unreliable. That doesn't change when you have something to present either.
You are the one who posts newspaper articles. Do you know what MWCOG is? Before I just asked the question?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
HOT lanes are dynamically priced to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. Maybe the all the GP lanes need to be dynamically priced as well, to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. Even having 4 GP lanes each way will not be a panacea, traffic will grow, maybe they all need to be dynamically priced.
Yes, let's have an I-66 on this highway. $40 tolls during rush hour, everybody pays, it's a great day. Ooh, let's toll every urban freeway with $40 dynamic tolls.
Maybe in your fantasy universe of toll roads, but it doesn't work that way in reality.
Did you smoke a reefer today?
Normal tolls would be much lower; only the last 1% or 2% of remaining capacity that need to be priced off of the highway would be asked to pay that.
Having 6 lanes each way on I-270 surely hasn't stopped it from being a very congested highway during peak hours. Maybe the all the GP lanes need to be dynamically priced as well, to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
In this system if you have less than 3 occupants you pay a toll.
...for the reason Transurban gets to have extra money. All of the VDOT owned HO/T lanes currently operate HOV 2+, and the private ones are HOV 3+. Hmm...
All the HOT lanes are owned by VDOT.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:44:11 PM
You are the one who posts newspaper articles. Do you know what MWCOG is? Before I just asked the question?
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Likely a biased group - of course they would agree with HO/T lanes and give all the positives. Do they have information regarding performance of the general purpose lanes, or is it all about those two little special lanes in the median?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
HOT lanes are dynamically priced to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. Maybe the all the GP lanes need to be dynamically priced as well, to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. Even having 4 GP lanes each way will not be a panacea, traffic will grow, maybe they all need to be dynamically priced.
Yes, let's have an I-66 on this highway. $40 tolls during rush hour, everybody pays, it's a great day. Ooh, let's toll every urban freeway with $40 dynamic tolls.
Maybe in your fantasy universe of toll roads, but it doesn't work that way in reality.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:44:11 PM
Normal tolls would be much lower; only the last 1% or 2% of remaining capacity that need to be priced off of the highway would be asked to pay that.
Then what the hell is the point to toll it to begin with?
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:44:11 PM
Having 6 lanes each way on I-270 surely hasn't stopped it from being a very congested highway during peak hours. Maybe the all the GP lanes need to be dynamically priced as well, to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity.
Majority of I-95 is under 200,000 AADT, though very close. I-270 is nearly 300,000 AADT.
HO/T lanes are coming to that corridor as well. 2 C/D + 5 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction. That will help.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:49:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:44:11 PM
You are the one who posts newspaper articles. Do you know what MWCOG is? Before I just asked the question?
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Likely a biased group - of course they would agree with HO/T lanes and give all the positives. Do they have information regarding performance of the general purpose lanes, or is it all about those two little special lanes in the median?
Really? The Metropolitan Planning Organization is a governmental body, not some Johnny-Newspaper.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:44:11 PM
Normal tolls would be much lower; only the last 1% or 2% of remaining capacity that need to be priced off of the highway would be asked to pay that.
Then what the hell is the point to toll it to begin with?
Lanes dynamically priced to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. If it is well below capacity the toll would be little or nothing.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:44:11 PM
Having 6 lanes each way on I-270 surely hasn't stopped it from being a very congested highway during peak hours. Maybe the all the GP lanes need to be dynamically priced as well, to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity.
Majority of I-95 is under 200,000 AADT, though very close. I-270 is nearly 300,000 AADT.
"Addressing congestion by widening the highway is like loosening your belt to address obesity".
Sorry folks, I couldn't help it! :-D
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:59:42 PM
Really? The Metropolitan Planning Organization is a governmental body, not some Johnny-Newspaper.
So... a biased group.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:59:42 PM
Lanes dynamically priced to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. If it is well below capacity the toll would be little or nothing.
News flash - the toll on all of I-95 would be $20 to clear it.
And if you dynamically price all the lanes to keep it below maximum capacity, where does the rest of that capacity go? Does it just magically disappear?
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:59:42 PM
"Addressing congestion by widening the highway is like loosening your belt to address obesity".
Sorry folks, I couldn't help it! :-D
And you loosen your belt enough, and it falls off.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 12:06:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:59:42 PM
Really? The Metropolitan Planning Organization is a governmental body, not some Johnny-Newspaper.
So... a biased group.
Newspapers aren't biased??
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 12:06:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 11:59:42 PM
Lanes dynamically priced to keep peak traffic just below the maximum capacity. If it is well below capacity the toll would be little or nothing.
News flash - the toll on all of I-95 would be $20 to clear it.
And if you dynamically price all the lanes to keep it below maximum capacity, where does the rest of that capacity go? Does it just magically disappear?
That doesn't compute or make any sense at all.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 12:22:06 AM
That doesn't compute or make any sense at all.
You toll I-95 high enough to get it at capacity, and not overcrowded. In order to do this, you would have to remove vehicles from the highway. Where do those vehicles go? Do they vanish?
I'm fixing to give you both a seven day ban if you don't both take a time out.
Quote from: Alps on February 02, 2019, 12:43:32 AM
I'm fixing to give you both a seven day ban if you don't both take a time out.
What's the issue though? We're having a discussion about the HO/T lanes in Northern Virginia. I'm confused as to what I need to time out on. I'd like to know so I could. Could you elaborate?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 12:55:26 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 02, 2019, 12:43:32 AM
I'm fixing to give you both a seven day ban if you don't both take a time out.
What's the issue though? We're having a discussion about the HO/T lanes in Northern Virginia. I'm confused as to what I need to time out on. I'd like to know so I could. Could you elaborate?
Well for one thing, Alps, if you are talking to us, you need to engage us, perhaps in e-mail, and provide some details on what exactly the issues are, and exactly what you would define as a "time out".
I have already tried to assist the moderators in the I-87 thread, I can see what some of the issues might be, perhaps my input wasn't deemed helpful, but I have tried to assist.
The two of you are going back and forth with name-calling, naysaying...
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PMHyperbole. It is not "constant".
...
That's baloney any way you slice it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Maybe in your fantasy universe of toll roads, but it doesn't work that way in reality.
Etc.
I'm not your babysitter.
Quote from: Alps on February 02, 2019, 01:43:08 AM
The two of you are going back and forth with name-calling, naysaying...
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PMHyperbole. It is not "constant".
...
That's baloney any way you slice it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Maybe in your fantasy universe of toll roads, but it doesn't work that way in reality.
Etc.
I'm not your babysitter.
So, basically, knock off the insults and name calling and we're good? The discussions in regards to the HO/T lanes shouldn't be banned itself, but I'll dial back. I understand you're not our "babysitter" , but you need to be more clear, I'm not trying to login with a 7 day block on my account if I can avoid that.
Sounds like you're just against the HOT lanes in general. If there are 4 regular lanes and 2 HOT lanes, the HOT lanes would have to be absolutely empty in order for there not to be a schmigion of congestion relief.
Let them fight.
Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2019, 08:40:20 AM
Let them fight.
i'd say this popcorn's gone stale.
i'm firmly in the camp of finding the 495 HOT lanes worth the price most of the time; my time is FAR more valuable to me. i am also NOT an expensive car owner, as anyone who's sat in the backseat of my Focus can attest.
would it be nicer if they were free? of course - but economic reality doesn't permit that.
Quote from: Alps on February 02, 2019, 01:43:08 AM
The two of you are going back and forth with name-calling, naysaying...
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PMHyperbole. It is not "constant".
...
That's baloney any way you slice it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Maybe in your fantasy universe of toll roads, but it doesn't work that way in reality.
Etc.
I'm not your babysitter.
Well, comparing this to the misc.transport.road days? Words like hyperbole and baloney are rather tame and certainly are not abusive.
Sprjus4 has staked out some rather controversial positions and I don't see why I should just acquiesce to them.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 11:55:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 02, 2019, 01:43:08 AM
The two of you are going back and forth with name-calling, naysaying...
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 10:59:59 PMHyperbole. It is not "constant".
...
That's baloney any way you slice it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:26:03 PM
Maybe in your fantasy universe of toll roads, but it doesn't work that way in reality.
Etc.
I'm not your babysitter.
Well, comparing this to the misc.transport.road days? Words like hyperbole and baloney are rather tame and certainly are not abusive.
Sprjus4 has staked out some rather controversial positions and I don't see why I should just acquiesce to them.
Quote from: odditude on February 02, 2019, 10:21:58 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2019, 08:40:20 AM
Let them fight.
i'd say this popcorn's gone stale.
i'm firmly in the camp of finding the 495 HOT lanes worth the price most of the time; my time is FAR more valuable to me. i am also NOT an expensive car owner, as anyone who's sat in the backseat of my Focus can attest.
would it be nicer if they were free? of course - but economic reality doesn't permit that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2019, 05:59:40 AM
Sounds like you're just against the HOT lanes in general. If there are 4 regular lanes and 2 HOT lanes, the HOT lanes would have to be absolutely empty in order for there not to be a schmigion of congestion relief.
Look, I'm not against the HO/T lanes, and I really don't have any issues with I-495. It's a well-done highway, 8 lanes wide, 2 HO/T lanes in each direction, and certainly would be more congested if it only had 6 lanes.
To summarize it...
My real point, and I think this is an easy one to agree with - I-95 needs to be widened to 8 lanes in the general purpose lanes, interchanges need to be reconfigured, auxiliary lanes between every interchange, etc. There needs to be relief to the hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day who do not wish to a pay toll. It's not all about the two reversible lanes, and screw everybody else. They need relief as well, and tax dollars & public funding needs to go towards it. After the Springfield Interchange, and Woodrow Wilson Bridge, billions of dollars for project in DC have mainly consisted have private companies, no gov't involvement in them, no tax dollars, and tolls. Maybe a couple hundred million in tax dollar & public funding. What they need to do now is launch a study to figure out how all this could be done, how much it would cost, etc.
They've refused to even study it, because of the HO/T lanes. That's my issue. I'm not against the HO/T lanes, but they need to be
one component to fixing I-95, not the only one. Toll-free solutions need to be incorporated to. The Rappahannock River Crossing is a great start, and it needs to be expanded north to the Occoquan. To start, they need to launch a study. That would be something.
I don't want this to be controversial, I'm just trying to explain what I, and thousands of people believe should happen. Thousands of others disagree and think the HO/T lanes is what should be invested in. Others think screw the GP and HO/T in general, let's just put transit everywhere. Everybody has their own views. I'm sorry if I came off otherwise.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 02:48:29 PM
Look, I'm not against the HO/T lanes, and I really don't have any issues with I-495. It's a
[...... snip ...... ]
Look, you've repeated essentially the same thing dozens of times. People are getting tired of the amount of bandwidth this argument is taking up. How about discussing a new topic somewhere on this board?
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 02:48:29 PM
Look, I'm not against the HO/T lanes, and I really don't have any issues with I-495. It's a
[...... snip ...... ]
Look, you've repeated essentially the same thing dozens of times. People are getting tired of the amount of bandwidth this argument is taking up. How about discussing a new topic somewhere on this board?
It's both of us, not just "me", going back and fourth. Yes, I'm fine with discussing a new topic.
While this article focuses mostly about Maryland's plans for potential express lanes on I-495 and I-270, it also provides some more details on the (hopefully temporary) northern terminus of the I-495 HOT Lanes extension:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2019/02/tolls-now-md-s-first-option-for-congestion-management-on-i-270-capital-beltway/slide/1/
QuoteVirginia is planning to extend its tolled Express Lanes to the Legion Bridge to meet up with future Maryland lanes, but expects the extension beyond the Dulles Toll Road could open before completion of any Legion Bridge improvements or the opening of the first Beltway toll lanes in Maryland.
In that case, the Virginia project run by 495 Express Lanes operator Transurban would probably include a single lane allowing an exit or entrance to or from the George Washington Parkway while the other of their two lanes ends just before the bridge, VDOT Megaprojects Director Susan Shaw told Fairfax County supervisors this week.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 16, 2019, 07:44:40 PM
While this article focuses mostly about Maryland's plans for potential express lanes on I-495 and I-270, it also provides some more details on the (hopefully temporary) northern terminus of the I-495 HOT Lanes extension:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2019/02/tolls-now-md-s-first-option-for-congestion-management-on-i-270-capital-beltway/slide/1/
QuoteVirginia is planning to extend its tolled Express Lanes to the Legion Bridge to meet up with future Maryland lanes, but expects the extension beyond the Dulles Toll Road could open before completion of any Legion Bridge improvements or the opening of the first Beltway toll lanes in Maryland.
In that case, the Virginia project run by 495 Express Lanes operator Transurban would probably include a single lane allowing an exit or entrance to or from the George Washington Parkway while the other of their two lanes ends just before the bridge, VDOT Megaprojects Director Susan Shaw told Fairfax County supervisors this week.
I assume it would be built to accommodate a future extension (I.E. an extremely wide shoulder to accommodate that second lane eventually, ramp stubs, etc.).
Let's discuss the Maryland proposals as well from the article.
The proposals for I-495 -
- A single toll lane each way on I-495 that would provide free or discounted use for carpools.
- Two toll lanes each way on I-495. The toll lanes would charge all users, including carpools.
- Two toll lanes each way on I-495 that would provide free or discounted use to carpools.
The proposals for I-270 -
- A single toll lane each way I-270 that would provide free or discounted use for carpools. The I-270 lane would be the current HOV lane.
- One toll lane each way on I-270 next to the existing HOV lane, which would remain. The toll lanes would charge all users, including carpools.
- Two toll lanes each way on I-270 that would provide free or discounted use to carpools. The existing I-270 HOV lane would be eliminated.
- Two toll lanes each way on I-270 while maintaining the current I-270 HOV lane. The toll lanes would charge all users, including carpools.
- A two-lane set of reversible toll lanes on I-270 that would go southbound in the morning and northbound in the afternoon. The lanes would provide free or discounted use to carpools. The current I-270 HOV lane would be eliminated.
- Two reversible toll lanes on I-270 that would charge tolls to all users. The current I-270 HOV lane would remain.
For I-495 in Maryland, the best option IMO to remain consistent with Virginia's proposal would be
"Two toll lanes each way on I-495 that would provide free or discounted use to carpools."For I-270, the best option is
"Two toll lanes each way on I-270 that would provide free or discounted use to carpools. The existing I-270 HOV lane would be eliminated."My only issue with the I-270 proposal is that I believe the C/D lanes would be eliminated. If anything, that's decreasing the capacity on the highway, and adding further issues. It should be 2 C/D, 3 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction. That would provide the best capacity, over the proposed 5 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction. Same amount of lanes, but the former splits local and thru traffic, the latter (proposed) mixes local and thru traffic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 08:41:21 PM
For I-495 in Maryland, the best option IMO to remain consistent with Virginia's proposal would be "Two toll lanes each way on I-495 that would provide free or discounted use to carpools."
For I-270, the best option is "Two toll lanes each way on I-270 that would provide free or discounted use to carpools. The existing I-270 HOV lane would be eliminated."
My only issue with the I-270 proposal is that I believe the C/D lanes would be eliminated. If anything, that's decreasing the capacity on the highway, and adding further issues. It should be 2 C/D, 3 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction. That would provide the best capacity, over the proposed 5 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction. Same amount of lanes, but the former splits local and thru traffic, the latter (proposed) mixes local and thru traffic.
Agreed. This I-270 proposal in particular could also likely be done within most of the highway's existing footprint. For me, the question is points of access. Will these "express toll lanes" have separate entrance and exit points from the general lanes such as the I-495 HOT lanes? Or will they be more similar to the entrance and exit points on the I-85 HOT lanes near Atlanta? Or a mix of both like the reversible ones on I-95? I personally prefer the I-495 model, but I realize with that comes much greater cost and disturbance.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 16, 2019, 09:51:48 PM
Agreed. This I-270 proposal in particular could also likely be done within most of the highway's existing footprint.
It would require redoing the lanes to maintain the C/D lanes, but IMHO it's worth it. The official concept would take the existing HOV lane plus the GP lane next to it, and convert them into HO/T lanes. To make up for the lost GP lane, the barrier between the C/D lanes would be removed, and that would be converted into a lane. To maintain C/D plus 2 HO/T in each direction, you'd have to construct one new lane to the outside, and shift the location of the C/D to Thru lanes divider, and replace many of the bridges.
Then again I-495's HO/T lanes will require the same treatment, as it did in Virginia, a complete multi-billion dollar overhaul of the highway, new bridges, new interchanges, etc.
Heard a report on the radio that I-395 HO/T operations are supposed to begin in October. I'm glad they're waiting until the fall because of the Metrorail shutdown this summer–that'll be enough of an adjustment for people without throwing a rule change on I-395 into the mix.
One of the plans I saw called for the elimination of the slip ramp from the inner carriageway to the main line just south of the Pentagon where the reversible lanes begin. Don't know what the status of that is. Seems to me it'd make sense to walk it off but not tear it up, simply in case they might want to reopen it at some point in the next few years.
^ From what I've read, that is due to how the operation to/from the Eads St ramps will be handled. Both of the Eads St ramps to/from the south will be open to direct traffic to/from each direction on Eads. They're eliminating that slip ramp so it doesn't interfere with traffic going to/coming from the Pentagon via Eads St. It's a pretty tight weave as it is (less than 700ft). Non-HO/T traffic will be required to exit at Eads or use the slip ramp before Route 1, and ALL traffic will be required to do the same when the HO/T lanes are pointed northward.
That's what I read as well.
I take a small amount of pride in the fact that I saw, for the first time in-person, a car fire on 395 North at Glebe Rd. This was on Tuesday afternoon around 3:30 PM.
Still-frame of a photo I took while getting over: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D43Y5G4XoAE5uct.jpg
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190520/1b11f9a4cba46926ea6e9c8db4f8a7eb.jpg)
Technically, they're not ETLs because Virginia uses HO/T lanes instead. But that's not the mistake that drew VDOT's attention!
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190520/c993420a52bc6fa7226541c82b840511.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 04:54:42 PM
Technically, they're not ETLs because Virginia uses HO/T lanes instead. But that's not the mistake that drew VDOT's attention!
A lot of information released tonight regarding the extension.
Here's a "2025" build schematic (http://www.495northernextension.org/documents/pim052019/pim052019_06openingyeardraft.pdf) of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and 4 GP lanes, extending from the existing and ending at the American Legion Bridge. It features direct connections to the Dulles Toll Road and George Washington Memorial Pkwy.
Perhaps even more interesting is the "2045" build schematic (http://www.495northernextension.org/documents/pim052019/pim052019_07designyeardraft.pdf) that shows how the HO/T lanes would tie into a widened / replaced American Legion Bridge and continued HO/T system into Maryland. Also the Dulles Toll Road interchange is massively expanded, and access the GW Memorial Pkwy to the HO/T lanes would be in both directions. The 2045 schematic shows a widened / replaced American Legion Bridge having 10 GP lanes (4 thru / 1 auxiliary in each direction), and 4 HO/T lanes (two in each direction), along with full left shoulders on the HO/T lanes, and full right shoulders on the GP lanes.
It would go from an 8-lane bridge with no shoulders to a 14-lane bridge with full left and right shoulders in total.
In both plans, the Georgetown Pike interchange is reconstructed fully with braided ramps & the overpass over I-495 is replaced with a wider and longer overpass.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190521/5b2f742dec5a0b810d69f94e704082cb.jpg)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 08:17:28 PM
Here's a "2025" build schematic (http://www.495northernextension.org/documents/pim052019/pim052019_06openingyeardraft.pdf) of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and 4 GP lanes, extending from the existing and ending at the American Legion Bridge. It features direct connections to the Dulles Toll Road and George Washington Memorial Pkwy.
Perhaps even more interesting is the "2045" build schematic (http://www.495northernextension.org/documents/pim052019/pim052019_07designyeardraft.pdf) that shows how the HO/T lanes would tie into a widened / replaced American Legion Bridge and continued HO/T system into Maryland. Also the Dulles Toll Road interchange is massively expanded, and access the GW Memorial Pkwy to the HO/T lanes would be in both directions. The 2045 schematic shows a widened / replaced American Legion Bridge having 10 GP lanes (4 thru / 1 auxiliary in each direction), and 4 HO/T lanes (two in each direction), along with full left shoulders on the HO/T lanes, and full right shoulders on the GP lanes.
It would go from an 8-lane bridge with no shoulders to a 14-lane bridge with full left and right shoulders in total.
In both plans, the Georgetown Pike interchange is reconstructed fully with braided ramps & the overpass over I-495 is replaced with a wider and longer overpass.
Assuming that MSHA adopts a 4-2-2-4 cross-section to match the Virginia section.
The 2025 design would only minimally upgrade the VA-267 interchange, and the I-495 left hand offramps would remain and all the original bridges would remain. It would tie into the existing Maryland cross-section.
The 2045 design would tie into a Maryland 4-2-2-4 cross-section and that would mean a lot more traffic on the HOT lanes north of VA-267, and the VA-267 interchange would be fully upgraded to all right hand ramps on the general purpose roadways, more direct connections to the HOT lanes, and all original I-495 bridges replaced. Nice!
If MSHA gets their part done sooner then hopefully the 2045 VDOT plan gets done much sooner.
I haven't looked at the link, so maybe it addresses this, but I wonder what they'll do if Maryland goes with ETLs instead of HO/T lanes–how do they plan to configure it for exiting the lanes if you're an HOV who doesn't want to pay Maryland, and what sort of signage would they use to clarify the different rules.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 08:48:55 PM
I haven't looked at the link, so maybe it addresses this, but I wonder what they'll do if Maryland goes with ETLs instead of HO/T lanes–how do they plan to configure it for exiting the lanes if you're an HOV who doesn't want to pay Maryland, and what sort of signage would they use to clarify the different rules.
MSHA apparently at least has an administrative category for HOT lane installations --
http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office_of_Planning_and_Capital_Programming/Express_Toll_Lanes/Documents/HOV_HOT_ETL.pdf
[that was published back in 2004 but I suppose they could still use that]
Given that they do have HOV on I-270, it would probably be logical to allow them to connect between VA I-495 and I-270, which would entail HOT lanes on that segment of MD I-495.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 08:38:59 PM
-image-
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Hate to say it, but that's what a lot of people feel. Not everybody wants HO/T lanes. You can't just roll your eyes at something you disagree with without analyzing both sides of the story.
But at some point you can't expand any further. I support the HO/T concept on here, while I would support more GP widening & improvements first on I-95 per se
Quote from: Beltway on May 20, 2019, 08:44:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 08:17:28 PM
Here's a "2025" build schematic (http://www.495northernextension.org/documents/pim052019/pim052019_06openingyeardraft.pdf) of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and 4 GP lanes, extending from the existing and ending at the American Legion Bridge. It features direct connections to the Dulles Toll Road and George Washington Memorial Pkwy.
Perhaps even more interesting is the "2045" build schematic (http://www.495northernextension.org/documents/pim052019/pim052019_07designyeardraft.pdf) that shows how the HO/T lanes would tie into a widened / replaced American Legion Bridge and continued HO/T system into Maryland. Also the Dulles Toll Road interchange is massively expanded, and access the GW Memorial Pkwy to the HO/T lanes would be in both directions. The 2045 schematic shows a widened / replaced American Legion Bridge having 10 GP lanes (4 thru / 1 auxiliary in each direction), and 4 HO/T lanes (two in each direction), along with full left shoulders on the HO/T lanes, and full right shoulders on the GP lanes.
It would go from an 8-lane bridge with no shoulders to a 14-lane bridge with full left and right shoulders in total.
In both plans, the Georgetown Pike interchange is reconstructed fully with braided ramps & the overpass over I-495 is replaced with a wider and longer overpass.
Assuming that MSHA adopts a 4-2-2-4 cross-section to match the Virginia section.
The 2025 design would only minimally upgrade the VA-267 interchange, and the I-495 left hand offramps would remain and all the original bridges would remain. It would tie into the existing Maryland cross-section.
The 2045 design would tie into a Maryland 4-2-2-4 cross-section and that would mean a lot more traffic on the HOT lanes north of VA-267, and the VA-267 interchange would be fully upgraded to all right hand ramps on the general purpose roadways, more direct connections to the HOT lanes, and all original I-495 bridges replaced. Nice!
If MSHA gets their part done sooner then hopefully the 2045 VDOT plan gets done much sooner.
My question is how much is this all going to cost? At least $1 billion for VDOT's "2025" build probably.
But I suppose the tolls and Transurban constructing it will leave all the cost and burden on them, not taxpayers and regular dollars.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:07:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 08:38:59 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190521/5b2f742dec5a0b810d69f94e704082cb.jpg)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Hate to say it, but that's what a lot of people feel. Not everybody wants HO/T lanes. You can't just roll your eyes at something you disagree with without analyzing both sides of the story.
But at some point you can't expand any further. I support the HO/T concept on here, while I would support more GP widening & improvements first on I-95 per se
My reaction is more because of her ignorance. People assume they're massively underused because they aren't at a standstill. But that's the whole point of the variable tolling. If they're congested, they aren't working properly–but people are so used to congestion, they think everything should be jammed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:11:18 PM
My reaction is more because of her ignorance. People assume they're massively underused because they aren't at a standstill. But that's the whole point of the variable tolling. If they're congested, they aren't working properly–but people are so used to congestion, they think everything should be jammed.
That makes more sense I suppose. I disagree with HO/T lanes in some instances, and I know people who outright hate them, but it's still important to realize they do work for the traffic that use them, and it has -some- benefit to GP traffic.
I've always found the I-495 Express Lanes to be better than the I-95 ones IMO. More direct exits, HO/T lanes going both directions not bi-directional, etc.
I just wish they used that concept on I-95, not the bi-directional type. -More- traffic flows in a certain direction depending on the time of the day on I-95, but there's a lot of times where backups exist in both directions, and having a setup like I-495 would be nice. Especially on Sundays heading southbound.
But the reversible lanes on I-95 had already been in place for over 20 years, such that rebuilding the road to have two HO/T lanes in each direction would have been hugely expensive and likely would have taken a lot longer. (The original Shirley Highway reversible lanes ended just south of Springfield at a point just south of the southern ramp to/from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. The lanes were extended south to near Dumfries in the early 1990s, if memory serves. They ended there until the more recent conversion to HO/T, which included the further southern extension.)
I think if they had been totally new, there may have been a different configuration more like the Beltway.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:50:22 PM
But the reversible lanes on I-95 had already been in place for over 20 years, such that rebuilding the road to have two HO/T lanes in each direction would have been hugely expensive and likely would have taken a lot longer. (The original Shirley Highway reversible lanes ended just south of Springfield at a point just south of the southern ramp to/from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. The lanes were extended south to near Dumfries in the early 1990s, if memory serves. They ended there until the more recent conversion to HO/T, which included the further southern extension.)
I think if they had been totally new, there may have been a different configuration more like the Beltway.
I-495 was an 8-lane highway with jersey barrier & no median until it was completely torn up & every single bridge and interchange was reconstructed, the footprint was expanded and a 4-lane HO/T system was shoved in the middle. They did it there, it could've been done on I-95 too.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:59:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:50:22 PM
But the reversible lanes on I-95 had already been in place for over 20 years, such that rebuilding the road to have two HO/T lanes in each direction would have been hugely expensive and likely would have taken a lot longer. (The original Shirley Highway reversible lanes ended just south of Springfield at a point just south of the southern ramp to/from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. The lanes were extended south to near Dumfries in the early 1990s, if memory serves. They ended there until the more recent conversion to HO/T, which included the further southern extension.)
I think if they had been totally new, there may have been a different configuration more like the Beltway.
I-495 was an 8-lane highway with jersey barrier & no median until it was completely torn up & every single bridge and interchange was reconstructed, the footprint was expanded and a 4-lane HO/T system was shoved in the middle. They did it there, it could've been done on I-95 too.
I-495 doesn't have the high directional split that a radial freeway like I-95 has, and they had to compromise with 6 lanes each way and not 4 separated roadways like they could have done if there was sufficient right-of-way. It is also only 11 miles compared to the 29 miles of I-95 and I-395.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:11:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:07:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 08:38:59 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190521/5b2f742dec5a0b810d69f94e704082cb.jpg)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Hate to say it, but that's what a lot of people feel. Not everybody wants HO/T lanes. You can't just roll your eyes at something you disagree with without analyzing both sides of the story.
But at some point you can't expand any further. I support the HO/T concept on here, while I would support more GP widening & improvements first on I-95 per se
My reaction is more because of her ignorance. People assume they're massively underused because they aren't at a standstill. But that's the whole point of the variable tolling. If they're congested, they aren't working properly–but people are so used to congestion, they think everything should be jammed.
I think the issue is that they are sold as a way of relieving congestion, when really they are an escape from it. They aren't meant to save you on a daily basis, just on those rare occasions you truly have to get somewhere and time really does matter a lot.
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
I think the issue is that they are sold as a way of relieving congestion, when really they are an escape from it. They aren't meant to save you on a daily basis, just on those rare occasions you truly have to get somewhere and time really does matter a lot.
That's so true though. And it seems VDOT avoids actually "fixing the congestion", but rather expects HO/T lanes to be the answer for everything. It's exactly what you said - an escape from it, and other than that - simply HOV lanes. When they launch a feasibility study / environmental assessment to widen I-95 from 6 to 8 -general purpose- lanes from VA-123 at Woodbridge to north of US-17 at Fredericksburg along with a 5th auxiliary lane in each direction between interchanges and associated interchange improvements along the corridor, I'll believe they're trying to actually get towards a real fix. And then determine how much it'll cost, and try to come up with a funding plan, and tap into the tax increase just passed which will allocate $40 million annually to I-95. Could be done 2030. And when that's finished, look at continuing to VA I-295. But I've seen nothing from them at all regarding a widening. Just spot fixes & HO/T extensions. You can argue there's no funding or it's a long way off - but at least start with an environmental assessment or a feasibility study. That's very affordable and is not "expensive".
And some on here will say they've done multi-billion dollar expansions with the "Mixing Bowl" / Springfield Interchange, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and the 8-lane general purpose widening down to the Occoquan River. That's great. Now let's look south of there, where the need is pressing and is getting worse every year.
Quote from: Beltway on May 20, 2019, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:59:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:50:22 PM
But the reversible lanes on I-95 had already been in place for over 20 years, such that rebuilding the road to have two HO/T lanes in each direction would have been hugely expensive and likely would have taken a lot longer. (The original Shirley Highway reversible lanes ended just south of Springfield at a point just south of the southern ramp to/from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. The lanes were extended south to near Dumfries in the early 1990s, if memory serves. They ended there until the more recent conversion to HO/T, which included the further southern extension.)
I think if they had been totally new, there may have been a different configuration more like the Beltway.
I-495 was an 8-lane highway with jersey barrier & no median until it was completely torn up & every single bridge and interchange was reconstructed, the footprint was expanded and a 4-lane HO/T system was shoved in the middle. They did it there, it could've been done on I-95 too.
I-495 doesn't have the high directional split that a radial freeway like I-95 has, and they had to compromise with 6 lanes each way and not 4 separated roadways like they could have done if there was sufficient right-of-way. It is also only 11 miles compared to the 29 miles of I-95 and I-395.
The point on right-of-way often gets missed. 95 is pretty tight as it is between Newington and the Franconia exit. Squeezing separate HO/T carriageways for each direction through there would, at a minimum, require *A LOT* of retaining wall and road/ramp realignment. More likely would require shifting Backlick and Lonsdale Roads outward, requiring the requisite ROW to do so.
Quote from: froggie on May 21, 2019, 09:45:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 20, 2019, 10:22:06 PM
I-495 doesn't have the high directional split that a radial freeway like I-95 has, and they had to compromise with 6 lanes each way and not 4 separated roadways like they could have done if there was sufficient right-of-way. It is also only 11 miles compared to the 29 miles of I-95 and I-395.
The point on right-of-way often gets missed. 95 is pretty tight as it is between Newington and the Franconia exit. Squeezing separate HO/T carriageways for each direction through there would, at a minimum, require *A LOT* of retaining wall and road/ramp realignment. More likely would require shifting Backlick and Lonsdale Roads outward, requiring the requisite ROW to do so.
That, and the fact that it integrates with the whole Shirley Highway reconstruction design of 1965-75, with the reversible roadway, and where they basically used up all the right-of-way that they could obtain in Arlington and Alexandria.
I would argue that with the completion of the 3-lane widening for the HOT lanes on I-395, that this highway has reached full buildout in Fairfax County, and Arlington and Alexandria. The 4N-3R-4S and 3N-3R-3S configurations well meet the directional splits.
General purpose widening south of Woodbridge is something that I have supported many times in the past.
This issue of full buildout of a radial freeway means that other freeways need to be built. One of the first would be this, but of course Maryland would need to get on board because they have not in the past.
Western Bypass of Washington area
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FWash_Bypass_W2_M.jpg&hash=97b9b30513ba75a7fa2d20a24331e5eb7ac0ef31)
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 08:17:28 PM
A lot of information released tonight regarding the extension.
Here's a "2025" build schematic (http://www.495northernextension.org/documents/pim052019/pim052019_06openingyeardraft.pdf) of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and 4 GP lanes, extending from the existing and ending at the American Legion Bridge. It features direct connections to the Dulles Toll Road and George Washington Memorial Pkwy.
Perhaps even more interesting is the "2045" build schematic (http://www.495northernextension.org/documents/pim052019/pim052019_07designyeardraft.pdf) that shows how the HO/T lanes would tie into a widened / replaced American Legion Bridge and continued HO/T system into Maryland. Also the Dulles Toll Road interchange is massively expanded, and access the GW Memorial Pkwy to the HO/T lanes would be in both directions. The 2045 schematic shows a widened / replaced American Legion Bridge having 10 GP lanes (4 thru / 1 auxiliary in each direction), and 4 HO/T lanes (two in each direction), along with full left shoulders on the HO/T lanes, and full right shoulders on the GP lanes.
It would go from an 8-lane bridge with no shoulders to a 14-lane bridge with full left and right shoulders in total.
In both plans, the Georgetown Pike interchange is reconstructed fully with braided ramps & the overpass over I-495 is replaced with a wider and longer overpass.
The 2045 Dulles Toll Road Interchange expansion is very impressive indeed. VA-123 interchange improvements with both I-495 and the DTR are included too. Furthermore, it appears as if VA-123 will also be given at least partial new HOT lanes access. My only question is who is planning to pay for these down the road improvements? The state, Transburban as part of the current deal, or maybe another party entirely?
I also still think a DDI would be a more efficient improvement at the Georgetown Pike Interchange.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2019, 04:16:06 PM
My only question is who is planning to pay for these down the road improvements? The state, Transburban as part of the current deal, or maybe another party entirely?
Transurban would be doing it. They'll recoup the cost, not VDOT or taxpayers.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2019, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2019, 04:16:06 PM
My only question is who is planning to pay for these down the road improvements? The state, Transburban as part of the current deal, or maybe another party entirely?
Transurban would be doing it. They'll recoup the cost, not VDOT or taxpayers.
Good, although there is no way the cost of that future interchange expansion was included in the current cost of $550 million for the 2.5 mile extension. Guessing the interchange expansion alone may cost around $500 million.
There's a portable VMS on I-395 advising that the southbound slip ramp from the express lanes back to the mainline at the Pentagon right where the reversible roadway begins will close for good on June 1. That's going to be a big adjustment for a lot of people and will have a major impact on traffic patterns leaving the Pentagon.
The northbound BGSs nearby that use "14th Street Br" as a control "city" (and that have peeling green backgrounds) are coming down soon–new signs that say "Washington" are in place just behind them.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 24, 2019, 01:09:01 PM
There's a portable VMS on I-395 advising that the southbound slip ramp from the express lanes back to the mainline at the Pentagon right where the reversible roadway begins will close for good on June 1. That's going to be a big adjustment for a lot of people and will have a major impact on traffic patterns leaving the Pentagon.
The northbound BGSs nearby that use "14th Street Br" as a control "city" (and that have peeling green backgrounds) are coming down soon–new signs that say "Washington" are in place just behind them.
Does this effectively make the carpool restrictions effective over a longer portion of I-395? How would this impact the extra traffic expected due to the Metro closure?
Quote from: mrsman on May 24, 2019, 02:46:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 24, 2019, 01:09:01 PM
There's a portable VMS on I-395 advising that the southbound slip ramp from the express lanes back to the mainline at the Pentagon right where the reversible roadway begins will close for good on June 1. That's going to be a big adjustment for a lot of people and will have a major impact on traffic patterns leaving the Pentagon.
The northbound BGSs nearby that use "14th Street Br" as a control "city" (and that have peeling green backgrounds) are coming down soon–new signs that say "Washington" are in place just behind them.
Does this effectively make the carpool restrictions effective over a longer portion of I-395? How would this impact the extra traffic expected due to the Metro closure?
On the second one, guess we'll find out the week after next.
Here's the link to the info on their website, including some maps:
https://www.expresslanes.com/projects/395#tab395-hov-lanes-permanent-ramp-closure
So I can confirm there are some big changes coming for the I-395 express lanes at the Pentagon. I'm on the shuttle bus home and when the bus exited the "pork chop" and turned up the ramp to the express lanes, it was easy to see the stencils painted on the road for northbound left turns into the Pentagon. In other words, the Eads Street ramps will become reversible later this year. That hasn't been publicized much and it'll be a massive shock to a lot of people. A lot of Pentagon commuters understandably have well-established routines, although there's so much construction there that I suppose they should be used to change.
^ Pretty sure that's already been announced. Though it seems DC drivers pay about as much attention to such announcements as they do pedestrians...
Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2019, 08:14:42 PM
^ Pretty sure that's already been announced. Though it seems DC drivers pay about as much attention to such announcements as they do pedestrians...
I know there has been limited info about it on Transurban's site, but it's gotten pretty much zero media coverage whatsoever. I think that's a disservice by the media because it's going to be a major set of changes. May also result in more crashes due to conflict between people exiting the southbound express lanes just north of Route 1 and people trying to move left from the mainline to take the left exit to Route 1.
Of course, you're right about people ignoring things. There were people today who didn't know about the Metrorail closures.
Quote from: mrsman on May 24, 2019, 02:46:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 24, 2019, 01:09:01 PM
There's a portable VMS on I-395 advising that the southbound slip ramp from the express lanes back to the mainline at the Pentagon right where the reversible roadway begins will close for good on June 1. That's going to be a big adjustment for a lot of people and will have a major impact on traffic patterns leaving the Pentagon.
The northbound BGSs nearby that use "14th Street Br" as a control "city" (and that have peeling green backgrounds) are coming down soon–new signs that say "Washington" are in place just behind them.
Does this effectively make the carpool restrictions effective over a longer portion of I-395? How would this impact the extra traffic expected due to the Metro closure?
This morning on the WMATA shuttle I was thinking this ramp closure is going to confuse the crap out of the bus drivers who are returning to Springfield and Huntington when the HOV lanes are pointed northbound. I haven't seen any sort of signage on the surface-level streets near the Pork Chop advising of the new route. ("New" in the sense of "newly-required." The roads in question have been there a long time.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2019, 08:05:35 AM
This morning on the WMATA shuttle I was thinking this ramp closure is going to confuse the crap out of the bus drivers who are returning to Springfield and Huntington when the HOV lanes are pointed northbound. I haven't seen any sort of signage on the surface-level streets near the Pork Chop advising of the new route. ("New" in the sense of "newly-required." The roads in question have been there a long time.)
So are there a slew of new express buses on I-95 and I-395, taking up the ridership between Franconia-Springfield and Pentagon stations?
Quote from: Beltway on May 31, 2019, 10:09:13 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2019, 08:05:35 AM
This morning on the WMATA shuttle I was thinking this ramp closure is going to confuse the crap out of the bus drivers who are returning to Springfield and Huntington when the HOV lanes are pointed northbound. I haven't seen any sort of signage on the surface-level streets near the Pork Chop advising of the new route. ("New" in the sense of "newly-required." The roads in question have been there a long time.)
So are there a slew of new express buses on I-95 and I-395, taking up the ridership between Franconia-Springfield and Pentagon stations?
Yes, until September 8 they're running buses roughly every five minutes in each direction between those two stops. Some are charter buses, some are Metrobuses. Yesterday morning I was on a Metrobus "bendy bus" (articulated bus) and last night I was on a standard Metrobus. My other trips this week have all been on charter buses that say "Academy" on the side. From Springfield, they enter the express lanes from the Franconia-Springfield Parkway, take I-395 to the exit marked simply "Pentagon" (the Eads Street exit), make a left at the bottom of the ramp, and then make a right around the Pork Chop to the transit center. Reverse that in the afternoon.
Edited to add: There should also be buses on the I-395 HOV making the express run between Huntington and the Pentagon, but I hear there have been hiccups there with lost bus drivers. One wound up at the Anacostia Metro on Tuesday morning.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2019, 10:26:31 AM
There should also be buses on the I-395 HOV making the express run between Huntington and the Pentagon, but I hear there have been hiccups there with lost bus drivers.
Isn't that way out of the way? What about the bus headways connecting the other closed stations? Where do the buses alight, in the Metrorail station bus bays?
Quote from: Beltway on May 31, 2019, 10:52:28 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2019, 10:26:31 AM
There should also be buses on the I-395 HOV making the express run between Huntington and the Pentagon, but I hear there have been hiccups there with lost bus drivers.
Isn't that way out of the way? What about the bus headways connecting the other closed stations? Where do the buses alight, in the Metrorail station bus bays?
It's out of the way distance-wise, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were faster time-wise during rush hour because of all the traffic lights if they went up Route 1. If I wanted to go downtown and I normally parked at Huntington, I'd consider switching to Springfield for the duration of this work. More straightforward trip.
There are other shuttles linking the closed stops, but I haven't taken the time to familiarize myself with them because I have no need to use them. At most of the closed stops they either use the regular bus bays or temporary ones, the latter at stops where the regular ones are closed for construction staging (Van Dorn and King Street are examples of that).
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2019, 10:59:55 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 31, 2019, 10:52:28 AM
Isn't that way out of the way? What about the bus headways connecting the other closed stations? Where do the buses alight, in the Metrorail station bus bays?
It's out of the way distance-wise, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were faster time-wise during rush hour because of all the traffic lights if they went up Route 1. If I wanted to go downtown and I normally parked at Huntington, I'd consider switching to Springfield for the duration of this work. More straightforward trip.
I thought you were referring to a trip between Huntington and Pentagon stations. That would include the bus taking the Beltway to Springfield.
Quote from: Beltway on May 31, 2019, 01:15:16 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2019, 10:59:55 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 31, 2019, 10:52:28 AM
Isn't that way out of the way? What about the bus headways connecting the other closed stations? Where do the buses alight, in the Metrorail station bus bays?
It's out of the way distance-wise, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were faster time-wise during rush hour because of all the traffic lights if they went up Route 1. If I wanted to go downtown and I normally parked at Huntington, I'd consider switching to Springfield for the duration of this work. More straightforward trip.
I thought you were referring to a trip between Huntington and Pentagon stations. That would include the bus taking the Beltway to Springfield.
In the one paragraph I was. Most of my comments have been about the buses between Springfield and the Pentagon, but I noted the express shuttle between Huntington and the Pentagon is also supposed to use the I-395 HOV. I have no personal experience on that bus route as I have no reason to ride it.
After that, you asked about the bus headways connecting the other closed stations. I said I don't know much about them. They're using surface streets for obvious reasons. I do know they are NOT using the Route 1 busway for the shuttles, supposedly because the drivers haven't been "trained" to do so (I assume this means they have to be educated on how to read the special bus traffic signals, which seems simple enough to me based on seeing those signals when I've been stopped at red lights).
There is a lot of information about the closure and the shuttle buses on WMATA's web site. Unfortunately, it isn't very well organized and there are a lot of separate lists, for each station and for each bus.
From a WaPo article, I saw a link to this "cheat sheet" which has the best summary of the closure and shuttle bus options. It also lists some of the regular buses that may be helpful to some people. Some of those buses are operating on a more frequent than normal schedule.
https://www.wmata.com/service/rail/PlatformProject/upload/Cheat-Sheet_BusBay-Shuttles_TAB-V_051619_v10a_PRINT.pdf
Basically, lists the new shuttle buses, a rough map of the shuttle bus routes, times when the buses run, and the locations of where to pick up the buses. As 1995hoo said, there is a lot of construction staging in the bus loops (I saw this at Braddock Road, a few weeks ago even before the work got under way), so buses may be moved to alternatrive bus bays.
As far as the special buses, there are 5 of them. All are free. The buses do go in both directions, though they are probably relatively empty in the reverse peak direction.
F/S-Van Dorn-King St-Reagan Airport local "blue line" shuttle. No specifics on the routing, but likely primarily on local streets. Hopefully taking advantage of the HOV lanes on Washington Street between King St and the airport.
Huntington-Eisenhower-King St-Braddock-Crystal City local "yellow line" shuttle. No specifics on the routing, but likely primarily on local streets. Probably uses US 1 between Braddock Road and Crystal City, but without the benefit of HOV lanes.
Landmark Mall - Pentagon Express. Likely uses N Van Dorn to Seminary to I-395. HOV lanes if going in the proper direction. Probably uses Duke St exit if HOV lanes are in wrong direction.
F/S - Pentagon Express. F/S Pkwy to I-395 HOV in HOV direction. F/S Pkwy to Fronteir to Franconia Rd to I-395 when HOV is in the wrong direction.
Huntington - Pentagon Express. As others have mentioned, this bus probably uses I-495 to I-395 to Pentagon, utilizing the I-395 HOV when open.
I know that many of the charter buses (and their drivers) are not from the area. It is probably confusing for them to have to learn different routes based on the time of day because of the reversible nature of HOV lanes. As 1995hoo mentioned, for those heading to DC, F/S is probably the best option as the ramps to the HOV lanes are right there. If you have the luxury of driving and parking, it may be wise to go there, then to wait for a local shuttle at a stop like King Street.
I believe, based on passing the buses on my way home, that the local bus starts its run by heading east on the F-S Parkway, north on Beulah Street, east on Franconia Road, north on Van Dorn Street, and probably around the loop on Metro Road to the Van Dorn stop. I assume from there they use Eisenhower Avenue east, but I don't know which route they use from there to the temporary bus bays on Diagonal Road. (The King Street parking and bus lane have been torn up for months now for a big rebuild.)
Aside from the proximity to the highway, I think two other good reasons to use Springfield are the ample free parking and the VRE access. VRE is a good fallback if there's a problem on I-395 or on the trains to the Pentagon, and Springfield is easier to park at than the Alexandria Amtrak stop the VRE serves.
Quote from: mrsman on May 24, 2019, 02:46:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 24, 2019, 01:09:01 PM
There's a portable VMS on I-395 advising that the southbound slip ramp from the express lanes back to the mainline at the Pentagon right where the reversible roadway begins will close for good on June 1. That's going to be a big adjustment for a lot of people and will have a major impact on traffic patterns leaving the Pentagon.
The northbound BGSs nearby that use "14th Street Br" as a control "city" (and that have peeling green backgrounds) are coming down soon–new signs that say "Washington" are in place just behind them.
Does this effectively make the carpool restrictions effective over a longer portion of I-395? How would this impact the extra traffic expected due to the Metro closure?
Dave Dildine of WTOP says the northern slip ramp will be the northern terminus of tolling. That implies to me you'd pay toll to go to the Pentagon to pick up slugs via the Eads Street ramp (by far the most direct way since they moved the slug lines to the Pork Chop two weeks ago). I don't know how it's to work between now and the start of tolling. The Express Lanes Twitter feed has a video I haven't gotten to watch yet.
Edited to add: Video linked below. Nothing we didn't already know, but you get a glimpse of some new signs. I hadn't seen them because I haven't driven into DC since hockey season ended.
https://youtu.be/38y-HGFViLc
QuoteDave Dildine of WTOP says the northern slip ramp will be the northern terminus of tolling. That implies to me you'd pay toll to go to the Pentagon to pick up slugs via the Eads Street ramp (by far the most direct way since they moved the slug lines to the Pork Chop two weeks ago). I don't know how it's to work between now and the start of tolling. The Express Lanes Twitter feed has a video I haven't gotten to watch yet.
According to past project documentation I've read, the Eads Street interchange will be the northern terminus. If you're coming from D.C. proper, you will be able to exit at Eads St (and vice versa) without paying the toll.
Quote from: froggie on June 01, 2019, 09:39:53 AM
QuoteDave Dildine of WTOP says the northern slip ramp will be the northern terminus of tolling. That implies to me you'd pay toll to go to the Pentagon to pick up slugs via the Eads Street ramp (by far the most direct way since they moved the slug lines to the Pork Chop two weeks ago). I don't know how it's to work between now and the start of tolling. The Express Lanes Twitter feed has a video I haven't gotten to watch yet.
According to past project documentation I've read, the Eads Street interchange will be the northern terminus. If you're coming from D.C. proper, you will be able to exit at Eads St (and vice versa) without paying the toll.
That makes a lot more sense. (Edited to add:) In that video, which I just rewatched on a larger screen, I note there appears to be a toll gantry adjacent to the remaining slip ramp, but it spans only the inbound express lanes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 01, 2019, 10:24:21 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 01, 2019, 09:39:53 AM
QuoteDave Dildine of WTOP says the northern slip ramp will be the northern terminus of tolling. That implies to me you'd pay toll to go to the Pentagon to pick up slugs via the Eads Street ramp (by far the most direct way since they moved the slug lines to the Pork Chop two weeks ago). I don't know how it's to work between now and the start of tolling. The Express Lanes Twitter feed has a video I haven't gotten to watch yet.
According to past project documentation I've read, the Eads Street interchange will be the northern terminus. If you're coming from D.C. proper, you will be able to exit at Eads St (and vice versa) without paying the toll.
That makes a lot more sense. (Edited to add:) In that video, which I just rewatched on a larger screen, I note there appears to be a toll gantry adjacent to the remaining slip ramp, but it spans only the inbound express lanes.
I just hope there is clear signage as to all of these changes. It didn't seem very clear on the video.
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 04:43:04 PM
I just hope there is clear signage as to all of these changes. It didn't seem very clear on the video.
A drone shot would be a lot better than that crazy wide angle dashboard cam. But then there's the Pentagon and National Airport nearby...
Quote from: davewiecking on June 02, 2019, 05:58:32 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 04:43:04 PM
I just hope there is clear signage as to all of these changes. It didn't seem very clear on the video.
A drone shot would be a lot better than that crazy wide angle dashboard cam. But then there's the Pentagon and National Airport nearby...
The signage has to be a lot better than what you'd typically see at an interstate highway. Normally, if I miss my exit, so I just continue and get to the next one. But here, continuing down what used to be regular freeway lanes could either be an HOV violation or going the wrong way on a reversible roadway.
And it's especially difficult now as there are probably a lot of new drivers who don't normally drive the corridor who are seeking a workaround for the Metro shutdown.
We'll see how they do the signage when this is finally implemented. Of course, if we don't think it's up to par, it sounds like a good candidate to revive the "Redesign this" thread in the Illustrations forum.
The now-closed ramp appeared to be blocked by a jersey wall when the bus went through that area (on the other side, of course) this morning. The ramp from Eads Street to the southbound HOV was blocked by trucks and heavy equipment to keep people from trying to use the closed road but to allow it open for the afternoon commute.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2019, 06:33:12 PM
I haven't driven into DC since hockey season ended.
Understand "The Ovechkin" is a popular drink in many places -- no ice and no cup.
(Not that I can brag on my Penguins :-( )
Quote from: VTGoose on June 03, 2019, 08:57:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2019, 06:33:12 PM
I haven't driven into DC since hockey season ended.
Understand "The Ovechkin" is a popular drink in many places -- no ice and no cup.
(Not that I can brag on my Penguins :-( )
Don't know about "no Cup." Hey, between the Caps last June and UVA spring sports this year, I don't have much to complain about in terms of sports these days.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 08, 2018, 07:32:37 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180608/90a3283d13e2d4befecfb9729bca85af.png)
:D :D :D :D
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 03, 2019, 08:04:54 AM
The now-closed ramp appeared to be blocked by a jersey wall when the bus went through that area (on the other side, of course) this morning. The ramp from Eads Street to the southbound HOV was blocked by trucks and heavy equipment to keep people from trying to use the closed road but to allow it open for the afternoon commute.
Forgot to post this last night: Not only is the old ramp blocked off, they've already milled most of the pavement to remove the ramp and, it appears, extend the on-ramp merge lane coming from Eads Street.
Traveling southbound on 395 (general purpose lanes) last Saturday (15th), I noticed a test pattern on the electronic lane indiactor signs ("1", "2" and "3" respectively), close to Glebe Road.
I drove to Merrifield via the I-495 HO/T lanes for a medical appointment last week and I noticed a lot of the electronic signs displaying messages saying "HOV-3 CHEATERS ENFORCED AT ALL TIMES" (or very similar wording). Made me wonder if they're seeing a lot of people using their E-ZPass Flexes in HOV mode without the required number of people in the car. I have no doubt there are some (emphasis on "some"!!!!) people who use I-66 inside the Beltway to the Beltway HO/T lanes, or vice versa, who may genuinely forget from time to time, but I'm sure they're the minority of people.
Come to think of it, I think the same message was displayed over the I-95 lanes in the middle of the Springfield Interchange during the afternoon commute–not positive because that's when I'm on the WMATA shuttle and I'm usually reading my Kindle. The I-66 "mistake" is less likely to be an issue there.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2019, 11:40:37 AM
I drove to Merrifield via the I-495 HO/T lanes for a medical appointment last week and I noticed a lot of the electronic signs displaying messages saying "HOV-3 CHEATERS ENFORCED AT ALL TIMES" (or very similar wording). Made me wonder if they're seeing a lot of people using their E-ZPass Flexes in HOV mode without the required number of people in the car. I have no doubt there are some (emphasis on "some"!!!!) people who use I-66 inside the Beltway to the Beltway HO/T lanes, or vice versa, who may genuinely forget from time to time, but I'm sure they're the minority of people.
Come to think of it, I think the same message was displayed over the I-95 lanes in the middle of the Springfield Interchange during the afternoon commute–not positive because that's when I'm on the WMATA shuttle and I'm usually reading my Kindle. The I-66 "mistake" is less likely to be an issue there.
It's been displayed a lot on the I-95 HO/T lanes lately, especially during rush hour. I've noticed it pop up over the past month. Also signage like "LANES ENFORCED 24/7" is also common.
I'll be sticking to those free GP lanes though. I've learned my way through there without paying $40.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2019, 11:43:52 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2019, 11:40:37 AM
I drove to Merrifield via the I-495 HO/T lanes for a medical appointment last week and I noticed a lot of the electronic signs displaying messages saying "HOV-3 CHEATERS ENFORCED AT ALL TIMES" (or very similar wording). Made me wonder if they're seeing a lot of people using their E-ZPass Flexes in HOV mode without the required number of people in the car. I have no doubt there are some (emphasis on "some"!!!!) people who use I-66 inside the Beltway to the Beltway HO/T lanes, or vice versa, who may genuinely forget from time to time, but I'm sure they're the minority of people.
Come to think of it, I think the same message was displayed over the I-95 lanes in the middle of the Springfield Interchange during the afternoon commute–not positive because that's when I'm on the WMATA shuttle and I'm usually reading my Kindle. The I-66 "mistake" is less likely to be an issue there.
It's been displayed a lot on the I-95 HO/T lanes lately, especially during rush hour. I've noticed it pop up over the past month. Also signage like "LANES ENFORCED 24/7" is also common.
I'll be sticking to those free GP lanes though. I've learned my way through there without paying $40.
Whatever works for a given individual. My main use for the I-95 lanes is to go from the Beltway to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, the latter an exit that isn't accessible from the mainline. Depending on the time of day, it's a much easier route than using Van Dorn Street.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2019, 01:11:11 PM
Whatever works for a given individual. My main use for the I-95 lanes is to go from the Beltway to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, the latter an exit that isn't accessible from the mainline. Depending on the time of day, it's a much easier route than using Van Dorn Street.
I mean, that's reasonable, especially if the toll isn't absurdly high. I'd probably use it then, or just take Franconia Rd to Frontier Drive, but I imagine the latter has traffic issues of it's own, thus making the HO/T exit much quicker.
My one dislike about that exit is the fact that they took a freeway segment of the parkway, and put a HO/T ramp with a stoplight right in the middle. But traffic wise, probably works out fine.
My main use of I-95 in North Virginia is south of US-1 exit. I rarely go north of there as my travels take me on US-1 when I'm in the area. And if I head north into DC, I'll just take US-1 or the George Washington Pkwy, or if going to I-495, I'll go straight to I-495 on US-1. I've only navigated through the "Mixing Bowl" Springfield Interchange on I-95 a couple of times, it mostly it was going through DC bound to Baltimore or something, not destined anywhere in DC.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2019, 11:40:37 AM
I drove to Merrifield via the I-495 HO/T lanes for a medical appointment last week and I noticed a lot of the electronic signs displaying messages saying "HOV-3 CHEATERS ENFORCED AT ALL TIMES" (or very similar wording). Made me wonder if they're seeing a lot of people using their E-ZPass Flexes in HOV mode without the required number of people in the car. I have no doubt there are some (emphasis on "some"!!!!) people who use I-66 inside the Beltway to the Beltway HO/T lanes, or vice versa, who may genuinely forget from time to time, but I'm sure they're the minority of people.
Come to think of it, I think the same message was displayed over the I-95 lanes in the middle of the Springfield Interchange during the afternoon commute–not positive because that's when I'm on the WMATA shuttle and I'm usually reading my Kindle. The I-66 "mistake" is less likely to be an issue there.
I think they just post this all over the region every so often. If they wanted to emphasize violations that occur frequently it would be the prohibition of semi trucks. I still see them pulled over multiple times a week including three in one day a couple months ago.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 17, 2019, 08:37:31 PM
I think they just post this all over the region every so often. If they wanted to emphasize violations that occur frequently it would be the prohibition of semi trucks. I still see them pulled over multiple times a week including three in one day a couple months ago.
I've always wondered, why do they prohibit trucks? If they are willing to pay the toll to bypass the congestion, what's the issue with that? If the HO/T lanes in question are more than one lane in each direction (they are on I-95 and I-495), a truck doing 65 mph in the right lane wouldn't be any issues. Traffic can easily pass on the left. Same with when a bus is using it - pass the slower moving bus on the left. No issues.
They let the buses in there no problem, but trucks are prohibited no questions asked. A bus does 65 mph in the right lane, why can't a truck do 65 mph in the right lane?
^ IIRC, pavement depth in the HO/T lanes isn't quite the same as what it is in the main lanes. As trucks give a considerable pounding to pavement (morseso than even buses), you'd have a lot more pavement failures in the HO/T lanes if you allowed trucks.
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2019, 09:50:00 PM
^ IIRC, pavement depth in the HO/T lanes isn't quite the same as what it is in the main lanes. As trucks give a considerable pounding to pavement (morseso than even buses), you'd have a lot more pavement failures in the HO/T lanes if you allowed trucks.
Considering how much they charge for the tolls, I don't think it'd kill them to strengthen the pavement and reconstruct it. If that's the only real issue - that can be fixed. Also, trucks would be paying to use it anyways, so more revenue for Transurban, and the reconstruction of the lanes would essentially be paid by the trucks who get to bypass the congestion.
From what I've read, they plan to allow trucks in the I-66 HO/T lanes outside the Beltway. That won't help matters because it's yet another inconsistency to confuse some people.
The I-395 and I-95 HOV lanes allowed (or allow, as to I-395) trucks except near the weigh station between Dumfries and Potomac Mills, but trucks were banned once the HO/T conversion occurred.
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2019, 09:50:00 PM
IIRC, pavement depth in the HO/T lanes isn't quite the same as what it is in the main lanes. As trucks give a considerable pounding to pavement (morseso than even buses), you'd have a lot more pavement failures in the HO/T lanes if you allowed trucks.
Buses have high axle loadings with full passenger load, nearly that of a fully loaded large truck.
I don't recall ever reading anything about lighter pavement depth. The I-95 reversible roadway used to allow large trucks in the off-peak hours. The issue is that where it was widened to 3 lanes the lanes were narrowed to 11 feet wide and one side does not have a full shoulder; there was not enough space for 12 foot lanes and full shoulders on both sides. Therefore that is an inadequate design for large trucks.
The HOT lanes on I-495 are the original pavement of I-495 and the widening was on the outside.
The 8 GP lanes are plenty adequate for the trucks on I-495, and the northern part of I-95 HOT lanes have cross-section issues.
Left hand ramps are a fact of life on managed lanes, workable with cars, but much more of a problem with large trucks, in driver visibility and in slow acceleration.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2019, 10:13:03 PM
From what I've read, they plan to allow trucks in the I-66 HO/T lanes outside the Beltway. That won't help matters because it's yet another inconsistency to confuse some people.
The I-395 and I-95 HOV lanes allowed (or allow, as to I-395) trucks except near the weigh station between Dumfries and Potomac Mills, but trucks were banned once the HO/T conversion occurred.
I don't see why Transurban has such a big issue with trucks to begin with. It's more money coming in their pockets, why would they complain?
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 10:19:27 PM
The issue is that where it was widened to 3 lanes the lanes were narrowed to 11 feet wide
What a cheap way to put in an additional lane :no: The entire highway's cross section, including the GP lanes should've been expanded to accommodate three 12 foot lanes and 10 foot paved shoulders in the HO/T lanes. A project shouldn't be done on the cheap to put some HO/T lane signage up and charge expensive tolls in return. You either build it to full standards or don't do anything at all. You don't "build an interstate highway on the cheap", as you've said before relating to another highway topic.
I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it, but I'm sensing some hypocrisy here. :hmm:
To be fair though, I-264 between Downtown Norfolk and the Oceanfront only has 11 foot lanes and has truck traffic. I had wondered for the longest time why that highway has always felt narrow when driving on it, and sure enough I measured it out in Google Maps, and it's noticeably smaller than a regular 12 foot interstate highway lane width, and comes out to 11 feet.
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 10:19:27 PM
and the northern part of I-95 HOT lanes have cross-section issues.
A poor, substandard design used by Transurban to build their interstate highway HO/T lane project on the cheap :no:
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2019, 10:21:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2019, 10:13:03 PM
From what I've read, they plan to allow trucks in the I-66 HO/T lanes outside the Beltway. That won't help matters because it's yet another inconsistency to confuse some people.
The I-395 and I-95 HOV lanes allowed (or allow, as to I-395) trucks except near the weigh station between Dumfries and Potomac Mills, but trucks were banned once the HO/T conversion occurred.
I don't see why Transurban has such a big issue with trucks to begin with. It's more money coming in their pockets, why would they complain?
How do you know it's Transurban and not VDOT? (I don't know which of them decided on the restriction.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2019, 10:35:35 PM
How do you know it's Transurban and not VDOT? (I don't know which of them decided on the restriction.)
Couldn't see how it's VDOT judging by they're allowing large trucks on the I-66 Outside the Beltway lanes. Then again maybe it is. Or maybe Transurban's poor, substandard design just to finish their HO/T lanes on the cheap.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2019, 10:32:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 10:19:27 PM
The issue is that where it was widened to 3 lanes the lanes were narrowed to 11 feet wide
What a cheap way to put in an additional lane :no: The entire highway's cross section, including the GP lanes should've been expanded to accommodate three 12 foot lanes and 10 foot paved shoulders in the HO/T lanes. A project shouldn't be done on the cheap to put some HO/T lane signage up and charge expensive tolls in return. You either build it to full standards or don't do anything at all. You don't "build an interstate highway on the cheap", as you've said before relating to another highway topic.
Did you get it all out? Do you have a bucket next to your desk in case it's not all out?
There is nothing cheap about it. Having 11-foot lanes on a freeway roadway that bans trucks (which are up to 8.5 feet wide and 55 feet long) is not a substandard design. The highway has at least one full shoulder the entire length.
It is not Transurban's design, this is how VDOT planned it from long before that.
The HOT lanes are for moving people, not cargo, and trucks would consume part of the capacity of the highway.
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 11:37:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2019, 10:32:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 10:19:27 PM
The issue is that where it was widened to 3 lanes the lanes were narrowed to 11 feet wide
What a cheap way to put in an additional lane :no: The entire highway's cross section, including the GP lanes should've been expanded to accommodate three 12 foot lanes and 10 foot paved shoulders in the HO/T lanes. A project shouldn't be done on the cheap to put some HO/T lane signage up and charge expensive tolls in return. You either build it to full standards or don't do anything at all. You don't "build an interstate highway on the cheap", as you've said before relating to another highway topic.
Did you get it all out? Do you have a bucket next to your desk in case it's not all out?
There is nothing cheap about it. Having 11-foot lanes on a freeway roadway that bans trucks (which are up to 8.5 feet wide and 55 feet long) is not a substandard design. The highway has at least one full shoulder the entire length.
It is not Transurban's design, this is how VDOT planned it from long before that.
The HOT lanes are for moving people, not cargo, and trucks would consume part of the capacity of the highway.
Seriously guys. Be nice to each other.
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 11:37:05 PM
Did you get it all out? Do you have a bucket next to your desk in case it's not all out?
Aren't you the one who complained about "personal insults"?
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 11:37:05 PM
There is nothing cheap about it. Having 11-foot lanes on a freeway roadway that bans trucks (which are up to 8.5 feet wide and 55 feet long) is not a substandard design. The highway has at least one full shoulder the entire length.
AASHTO's Guide for High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities manual indicates the standard lane width in an HOV (or HO/T) facility is to be 12 feet wide. The Express Lanes use of 11 foot lanes is a substandard design, and in violation to FHWA & AASHTO standards. A reduced footprint of 2 foot left and right shoulders may be used when physical constraints exist, per the standards, though nowhere does it permit the lane width to be reduced under 12 feet.
It's not "acceptable" just because trucks don't use it. It's substandard and not something expected on a facility as new as 2013.
Certain buses can have the width near that of a large truck as well in instances. No issues with them. Not to mention, a lot of arterial highways in Virginia have 10-11 ft lane widths, and carry large percentages of trucks with no issues. A lot of them even have speed limits as high as 60 mph. I'd be willing to bet some older 65 mph limited-access bypasses also have smaller widths than 12 feet.
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 11:37:05 PM
8.5 feet wide
So... less than 11 feet?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 12:00:29 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 11:37:05 PM
There is nothing cheap about it. Having 11-foot lanes on a freeway roadway that bans trucks (which are up to 8.5 feet wide and 55 feet long) is not a substandard design. The highway has at least one full shoulder the entire length.
AASHTO's Guide for High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities manual indicates the standard lane width in an HOV (or HO/T) facility is to be 12 feet wide. The Express Lanes use of 11 foot lanes is a substandard design, and in violation to FHWA & AASHTO standards.
I would have to read the standard to see exactly what it says. Managed lanes can handle trucks unless prohibited, and it may be that 12 feet is enforced in that case. Buses are not as wide as trucks and they are a lot shorter.
You're just being your usual contentious self.
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 12:14:55 AM
You're just being your usual contentious self.
Again, what happened to no personal attacks? :no:
A bit of a hypocrite to say that nonetheless... let's look at dozens of pages of I-87 related discussions where you've spewed the same talking points just to keep the fire going in some sort of dispute that is never ending every time anything about the highway comes up, or a peep of Virginia is mentioned with it. There's valid points such as the concept is useless, then you've gotten into conspiracies about how the studies are flawed, low-balled, substandard designs, etc. when actually they've followed all of AASHTO and FHWA standards, use detailed engineering cost estimates, was put together by engineers with a private firm, etc. but you've claimed the study was put together by business advocates with no factual evidence. Yet a substandard, clear violation of AASHTO and FHWA guidelines on a project you support in -Virginia- is A-OK.
But I digress. We don't need a purple-text coming on here locking the thread over some silly back and forth. Let's move this discussion on.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 12:26:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 12:14:55 AM
You're just being your usual contentious self.
Again, what happened to no personal attacks? :no:
A bit of a hypocrite to say that nonetheless... let's look at dozens of pages of I-87 related discussions where you've spewed the same talking points just to keep the fire going in some sort of dispute that is never ending every time anything about the highway comes up, or a peep of Virginia is mentioned with it. There's valid points such as the concept is useless, then you've gotten into conspiracies about how the studies are flawed, low-balled, substandard designs, etc. when actually they've followed all of AASHTO and FHWA standards, use detailed engineering cost estimates, etc. but you've claimed the study was put together by business advocates with no factual evidence. Yet a substandard, clear violation of AASHTO and FHWA guidelines on a project you support is A-OK.
But I digress. We don't need a purple-text coming on here locking the thread over some silly back and forth. Let's move this discussion on.
C'mon guys. Keep it together now.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 12:26:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 12:14:55 AM
You're just being your usual contentious self.
Again, what happened to no personal attacks? :no:
A bit of a hypocrite to say that nonetheless... let's look at dozens of pages of I-87 related discussions where you've spewed the same talking points just to keep the fire going in some sort of dispute that is never ending every time anything about the highway comes up, or a peep of Virginia is mentioned with it. There's valid points such as the concept is useless, then you've gotten into conspiracies about how the studies are flawed, low-balled, substandard designs, etc. when actually they've followed all of AASHTO and FHWA standards, use detailed engineering cost estimates, was put together by engineers with a private firm, etc. but you've claimed the study was put together by business advocates with no factual evidence. Yet a substandard, clear violation of AASHTO and FHWA guidelines on a project you support in -Virginia- is A-OK.
Sounds like you are bitter and angry about my comments about the VI-87.
You need to try to provide proof that 11 foot lanes on managed lanes that prohibit trucks is a violation of AASHTO and FHWA guidelines.
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 12:37:36 AM
Sounds like you are bitter and angry about my comments...
Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 12:37:36 AM
You need to try to provide proof that...
You're way too defensive about these projects, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 12:44:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 12:37:36 AM
Sounds like you are bitter and angry about my comments...
Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 12:37:36 AM
You need to try to provide proof that...
You're way too defensive about these projects, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way.
Inb4 lock
Did you smoke a reefer today?
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 12:50:27 AM
Did you smoke a reefer today?
I think you may need to step back from your computer and take a break.
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 12:50:27 AM
Did you smoke a reefer today?
No, but there was madness.
Quote from: BeltwayI don't recall ever reading anything about lighter pavement depth. The I-95 reversible roadway used to allow large trucks in the off-peak hours.
I'd forgotten about that. Interesting considering the I-64 reversible roadway in Norfolk does expressly prohibit trucks.
Quote from: sprjus4What a cheap way to put in an additional lane :no: The entire highway's cross section, including the GP lanes should've been expanded to accommodate three 12 foot lanes and 10 foot paved shoulders in the HO/T lanes.
Let me (or, better yet, VDOT) know how you plan to squeeze that in between Newington and Franconia. Doing what you suggest would require shifting the mainline lanes outward, and there's no room for such north of Newington.
Regarding the former rules on I-95, trucks weren't restricted only to non-HOV hours. They were allowed during HOV hours if they met the HOV restriction (except, of course, at the southern end where they had to use the main lanes to access the weigh station). Most truckers didn't have three or more people on board, so they didn't use the HOV lanes during the restricted hours.
Quote from: froggie on June 18, 2019, 06:50:01 AM
Let me (or, better yet, VDOT) know how you plan to squeeze that in between Newington and Franconia. Doing what you suggest would require shifting the mainline lanes outward, and there's no room for such north of Newington.
Beltway noted that VDOT had planned to widen the HOV lanes to 3 lanes "long before" the whole Transurban / HO/T lane deal came about. The Springfield Interchange was completely revamped between 2001 - 2012. Looking at previous aerial imagery from back in 2002, there was plenty of room to shift the lanes where needed and provide three 12 foot lanes in the reversible lanes. Where you claim there's no room to do that - there was room in the early 2000s, and had VDOT planned to ultimately 3 lane the reversible lanes as Beltway said, all of the massive tangled web of flyovers constructed up that way could've easily been designed to ultimately handle that.
It's not much of an issue to be fair operationally, but it still technically goes against FHWA & AASHTO policy, and if one can claim a high-speed 45-55 mph left exit onto another freeway is against interstate standards and a substandard, cheap, poor design, you could easily the same here on VDOT's part for not designing the Springfield Interchange complex to accommodate a 3-lane 12 foot lane reversible lane, had they been planning to do the 3-lane like Beltway said, but instead just have planned to shrink the lanes to 11 feet to stay within the footprint and not expand it to properly conform to modern standards.
So it wouldn't be Transurban's fault after all... from what I'm seeing this is on VDOT.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 11:26:00 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 18, 2019, 06:50:01 AM
Let me (or, better yet, VDOT) know how you plan to squeeze that in between Newington and Franconia. Doing what you suggest would require shifting the mainline lanes outward, and there's no room for such north of Newington.
Beltway noted that VDOT had planned to widen the HOV lanes to 3 lanes "long before" the whole Transurban / HO/T lane deal came about. The Springfield Interchange was completely revamped between 2001 - 2012. Looking at previous aerial imagery from back in 2002, there was plenty of room to shift the lanes where needed and provide three 12 foot lanes in the reversible lanes. Where you claim there's no room to do that - there was room in the early 2000s, and had VDOT planned to ultimately 3 lane the reversible lanes as Beltway said, all of the massive tangled web of flyovers constructed up that way could've easily been designed to ultimately handle that.
Look at aerials in the Newington area, it is too constrained for relocating one or both GP roadways.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 11:26:00 AM
It's not much of an issue to be fair operationally, but it still technically goes against FHWA & AASHTO policy, and if one can claim a high-speed 45-55 mph left exit onto another freeway is against interstate standards and a substandard, cheap, poor design, you could easily the same here on VDOT's part for not designing the Springfield Interchange complex to accommodate a 3-lane 12 foot lane reversible lane, had they been planning to do the 3-lane like Beltway said, but instead just have planned to shrink the lanes to 11 feet to stay within the footprint and not expand it to properly conform to modern standards.
The Springfield Interchange Improvement Project is a 1997 design, before the 3-lane managed design was formulated.
In any event, a managed no-trucks roadway on an Interstate highway is a different animal from the general purpose roadways. Trucks are why 12-foot lanes were adopted in 1956 Interstate system concept, even back then the typical state laws for large trucks was for maximums of 8 feet (96 inches) wide, 40 feet long, and about 72,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. The highways and the turnpikes before them typically had 10% to 20% large truck volume. Today that is 8.5 feet, 55 feet and 80,000 lbs. GVW.
60 buses per hour would probably be more than the managed lanes would ever handle, and that is one per minute, hardly any problem on 11 foot lanes. That dismisses the comment about allowing transit buses.
FHWA would have had to issue a design exception if 11 foot lanes were any issue on this managed roadway.
Take the trucks off of an Interstate roadway and you have a very different highway, and 11 foot lanes have no safety issue.
I have criticized a number of issues with the Virginia highway establishment, and this is not one of them.
You need to look for something else if you want something to criticize.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2019, 07:55:22 AM
Regarding the former rules on I-95, trucks weren't restricted only to non-HOV hours. They were allowed during HOV hours if they met the HOV restriction (except, of course, at the southern end where they had to use the main lanes to access the weigh station). Most truckers didn't have three or more people on board, so they didn't use the HOV lanes during the restricted hours.
That is a good point, large trucks don't normally carry more than 2 people. If they were permitted on the HOT lanes then they would have to be priced to manage the level of truck traffic. Imagine how high their tolls would be? HOT and HOV lanes are for moving people, not cargo, which is usually much less time sensitive than people.
^ Here's something interesting...
I-95 HOV/HOT Lanes Design Public Hearing Materials, September 6, 2011 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/September_2011_DPH_Comment_Report.pdf)
In the public comments section...
QuoteThe Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) would like to pose a question related to the proposed I‐ 95 HOT lanes design
The question is prompted by the fact that the width of each HOT lane between the Prince William Parkway and the northernmost limit of the project is eleven feet, with adjoining shoulders that vary in width but are typically 3.5 feet wide on the western side and ten feet wide on the eastern side. Those dimensions are a matter of concern to PRTC, because PRTC operates extensive commuter bus service on I‐ 95, employing buses that are 102 inches wide (8.5 feet) with mirrors on both sides of the bus that protrude outwards beyond the 8.5 foot dimension.
PRTC's concern is that buses traveling at high speeds in lanes that are only eleven feet wide will be more at risk of "mirror clipping" incidents. If the HOT lanes marking remain in the same place whether the lanes are flowing northbound or southbound, the concern becomes most acute in the afternoons, because buses traveling in the right‐most lane ("the slow lane" ) will have very little maneuvering room, what with a mere 3.5 foot width shoulder, to steer clear of a vehicle in the neighboring lane that encroaches on the lane the bus is using. In the morning, buses traveling in the right‐most lane would have the ten foot shoulder as a sort of refuge area to steer clear of a threatening neighboring vehicle, lessening the risk of a mirror clip.
All this said, PRTC's question is "could the HOT lanes be delineated differently depending on the direction of travel?" If the lane delineations could be shifted when traffic is flowing southbound to provide for a ten foot wide shoulder adjacent to the slow lane, the likelihood of mirror clipping incident could be lessened in both directions. Perhaps a shift as described could be accomplished with a combination of lane markings and overhead signage delineating the lanes?
This was VDOT's response...
QuoteThank you for your comments on the I‐95 HOV/HOT Lanes project. As you know, the Department of Rail and Public Transportation is coordinating the transit plans for I‐95 and has met with transit agencies and local governments' transit operators.
The project between Garrisonville Road and the Prince William Parkway has full 12 foot shoulders on both sides and two 12 foot lanes. North of the Prince William Parkway, the project includes a consistent shoulder on the east side of at least 10 feet; west side shoulders vary from 3 to 10 feet. The project also includes 14 emergency pull‐off areas, which occur on both sides of the HOV lanes to aid distressed travelers and promote safe enforcement of the HOT Lanes.
Much of the interstate system in Northern Virginia has similar characteristics to the I‐95 HOV/HOT lanes project. There are currently 11 foot lanes with variable shoulders on the northern section of I‐395, the Dulles Toll Road and other roads throughout the Commonwealth. All of which carry transit vehicles.
Thank you for your interest in the project. VDOT is committed to a project‐long community outreach program and a program of periodic meetings with your Board, its members, you and your staff.
So, as I predicted, some of the buses in question are 8.5 wide, and go beyond that due to outward mirrors. Interesting also the fact I-395, and the Dulles Toll Road, which both carry trucks, have 11 foot lanes as well.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 06:18:20 PM
QuoteThank you for your comments on the I‐95 HOV/HOT Lanes project. As you know, the Department of Rail and Public Transportation is coordinating the transit plans for I‐95 and has met with transit agencies and local governments' transit operators.
The project between Garrisonville Road and the Prince William Parkway has full 12 foot shoulders on both sides and two 12 foot lanes. North of the Prince William Parkway, the project includes a consistent shoulder on the east side of at least 10 feet; west side shoulders vary from 3 to 10 feet. The project also includes 14 emergency pull‐off areas, which occur on both sides of the HOV lanes to aid distressed travelers and promote safe enforcement of the HOT Lanes.
Much of the interstate system in Northern Virginia has similar characteristics to the I‐95 HOV/HOT lanes project. There are currently 11 foot lanes with variable shoulders on the northern section of I‐395, the Dulles Toll Road and other roads throughout the Commonwealth. All of which carry transit vehicles.
Thank you for your interest in the project. VDOT is committed to a project‐long community outreach program and a program of periodic meetings with your Board, its members, you and your staff.
So, as I predicted, some of the buses in question are 8.5 wide, and go beyond that due to outward mirrors. Interesting also the fact I-395, and the Dulles Toll Road, which both carry trucks, have 11 foot lanes as well.
What VDOT employee wrote that comment? The Dulles Toll Road is not on the Interstate system.
What northern section of I‐395? I just took some measurements and the 3-lane roadways were 36 feet and the 4 lane roadways were 48 feet.
In any event, look at the peak hourly volume of buses and compare that to the peak hourly volume of trucks on I-95.
Reading through these comments, I noticed an interesting trend, which really shows how invested VDOT is into these HO/T lanes. There were a significant amount of comments that were in opposition to these lanes. VDOT's response? The same few selling points, dodging most of their legitimate concerns (such as how taxdollars paid for the HOV lanes to be free during off-peak hours, now they're not, expensive toll rates (which VDOT claimed would never get above $5 - $7, which was an utter lie), etc.), yet when someone was interested in the HO/T lanes or showed support, they provided more detailed comments, favored responses, etc.
Why bother doing a public hearing or comment period when they're just going to ignore all the opposition and merely listen to the people who support it? A very biased comment period and responses, ignoring the people in opposition, etc. I've seen this from VDOT in other cases in the past.
I don't see this much in other states to be quite honest.
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 05:45:45 PM
Take the trucks off of an Interstate roadway and you have a very different highway, and 11 foot lanes have no safety issue.
Wait, so "V"I-87 can have 11 foot lanes? Because you've indicated multiple times it will have a "very low percentage (<5%)" of truck traffic.
I-264 has 11 foot lanes between Norfolk and the Oceanfront, and doesn't carry a significant amount of truck traffic. Is this a new standard?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 07:53:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 05:45:45 PM
Take the trucks off of an Interstate roadway and you have a very different highway, and 11 foot lanes have no safety issue.
Wait, so "V"I-87 can have 11 foot lanes? Because you've indicated multiple times it will have a "very low percentage (<5%)" of truck traffic.
I-264 has 11 foot lanes between Norfolk and the Oceanfront, and doesn't carry a significant amount of truck traffic. Is this a new standard?
Hi, I'm an actual engineer, and can vouch that 11 foot lanes are substandard.
Quote from: Alps on June 18, 2019, 07:56:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 07:53:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 05:45:45 PM
Take the trucks off of an Interstate roadway and you have a very different highway, and 11 foot lanes have no safety issue.
Wait, so "V"I-87 can have 11 foot lanes? Because you've indicated multiple times it will have a "very low percentage (<5%)" of truck traffic.
I-264 has 11 foot lanes between Norfolk and the Oceanfront, and doesn't carry a significant amount of truck traffic. Is this a new standard?
Hi, I'm an actual engineer, and can vouch that 11 foot lanes are substandard.
Hi, many other actual engineers disagree with you, and seal plans that you consider "substandard".
I just measured I-264 in 7 places and every place it has 12 foot lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 10:32:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 18, 2019, 07:56:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 07:53:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 05:45:45 PM
Take the trucks off of an Interstate roadway and you have a very different highway, and 11 foot lanes have no safety issue.
Wait, so "V"I-87 can have 11 foot lanes? Because you've indicated multiple times it will have a "very low percentage (<5%)" of truck traffic.
I-264 has 11 foot lanes between Norfolk and the Oceanfront, and doesn't carry a significant amount of truck traffic. Is this a new standard?
Hi, I'm an actual engineer, and can vouch that 11 foot lanes are substandard.
Hi, many other actual engineers disagree with you, and seal plans that you consider "substandard".
I just measured I-264 in 7 places and every place it has 12 foot lanes.
I never said that plans can't be sealed with narrower than 12' lanes, but they are absolutely standard and to deny that indicates a lack of understanding of engineering.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 07:17:42 PM
Reading through these comments, I noticed an interesting trend, which really shows how invested VDOT is into these HO/T lanes. There were a significant amount of comments that were in opposition to these lanes. VDOT's response? The same few selling points, dodging most of their legitimate concerns (such as how taxdollars paid for the HOV lanes to be free during off-peak hours, now they're not, expensive toll rates (which VDOT claimed would never get above $5 - $7, which was an utter lie), etc.), yet when someone was interested in the HO/T lanes or showed support, they provided more detailed comments, favored responses, etc.
Why bother doing a public hearing or comment period when they're just going to ignore all the opposition and merely listen to the people who support it? A very biased comment period and responses, ignoring the people in opposition, etc. I've seen this from VDOT in other cases in the past.
Because many comments are in favor of the HOT lanes, and they enjoy widespread citizen and political and advocacy group support post-implementation.
Nobody ever claimed that they would never get above $5 - $7, and even with the tolling seen since the 2012 and 2014 implementations, they continue to have widespread support for continued expansion of the system on I-95 and I-66 and I-395 and I-495. The reason why the tolls are as high as they are in peak hours is because of the very high demand to use the lanes, lower tolls would result in serious congestion.
I had questions about the 3-lane widening and the conversion of toll-free HOV lanes to HOT lanes, while the system was being planned, and both of them affect my usage of the lanes, but after using the system for several years now I am definitely sold on the concept.
Did you attend the CTB meeting today?
Quote from: Alps on June 18, 2019, 10:38:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 10:32:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 18, 2019, 07:56:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 07:53:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 05:45:45 PM
Take the trucks off of an Interstate roadway and you have a very different highway, and 11 foot lanes have no safety issue.
Wait, so "V"I-87 can have 11 foot lanes? Because you've indicated multiple times it will have a "very low percentage (<5%)" of truck traffic.
I-264 has 11 foot lanes between Norfolk and the Oceanfront, and doesn't carry a significant amount of truck traffic. Is this a new standard?
Hi, I'm an actual engineer, and can vouch that 11 foot lanes are substandard.
Hi, many other actual engineers disagree with you, and seal plans that you consider "substandard".
I just measured I-264 in 7 places and every place it has 12 foot lanes.
I never said that plans can't be sealed with narrower than 12' lanes, but they are absolutely standard and to deny that indicates a lack of understanding of engineering.
Is this a "one size fits all" judgement? Maybe it is how people use the word "substandard". Some could use it as in "crappy"; others could use it as in "less than the normal standard".
Substandard - doesn't meet standards.
It's not "crappy" , it just doesn't meet standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2019, 07:17:42 PM
Reading through these comments, I noticed an interesting trend, which really shows how invested VDOT is into these HO/T lanes. There were a significant amount of comments that were in opposition to these lanes. VDOT's response? The same few selling points, dodging most of their legitimate concerns (such as how taxdollars paid for the HOV lanes to be free during off-peak hours, now they're not, expensive toll rates (which VDOT claimed would never get above $5 - $7, which was an utter lie), etc.), yet when someone was interested in the HO/T lanes or showed support, they provided more detailed comments, favored responses, etc.
Why bother doing a public hearing or comment period when they're just going to ignore all the opposition and merely listen to the people who support it? A very biased comment period and responses, ignoring the people in opposition, etc. I've seen this from VDOT in other cases in the past.
I don't see this much in other states to be quite honest.
In my observation, and I know mtantillo of this forum has noted the same thing, many of the comments people make claiming to oppose the HO/T lanes often don't merit a response because they aren't substantive comments. Instead, they're the sound-bite style sloganeering (often profane) that's all the rage these days due to things like Twitter. "Opponents" would use slogans like "Lexus Lanes" or "tax dollars" or whatever and wouldn't post anything more than the minimal slogans. Then if someone did respond with factual points, the response would be childish ranting like "these lanes suck, and if you like them you suck too," or everyone's favorite conspiracy theory, "You must work for Transurban because they're the only people who like this."
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 10:42:35 PM
Nobody ever claimed that they would never get above $5 - $7
Lies.
Question - What will be the charge to ride in the HOT lanes? How long will the tolls last? What will commuters get out of this project? Where is the money going, and how will we know the money is going to where it is planned to go?
Answer - Tolls will vary based on real‐time traffic conditions; a typical toll during rush hour is expected to be between $5‐$7.
I laughed hard when I saw that. A typical toll at 8:30PM is $5 - $7. At 3:00PM on a Friday heading southbound, it's more like $20 - $30 for like 10 miles. I would -never- pay that for such little benefit. I'm not -that- desperate to bypass the traffic - I could use that $20 - $30 on so much more useful things in life.
Also interesting how VDOT clearly dodged everything else (especially the last question) asked in that one particular question..
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 19, 2019, 08:54:23 AM
"tax dollars"
That's not a "slogan", that's a -fact-. Tax dollars funded the construction of the reversible lanes, which were free to everybody except during rush hour. There were a lot of complaints in this manner, the fact you have to pay a toll outside of rush-hour to ride in lanes that were tax dollar funded and only intended to have HOV-3 restrictions during -rush hour-, not 24/7, and VDOT continuously ignored and dodged every single time with the same few selling points. Also, if there was congestion in the GP lanes during off-peak hours, you could hop in the HOV lanes, which were tax dollar funded, and bypass the congestion, and it usually worked out smoothly with no issues. Again, VDOT ignored and dodged that valid argument every time it was brought up.
They were never able to offer anything useful to people in opposition. VDOT was going through with their plan, claiming "Public Input" opportunities along the way, which they clearly used to be praised by supporters, and then ignored the 1/2 of people against the project. My way or the highway was VDOT's approach at HO/T lanes it seems.
Another argument was these HO/T lanes are just a band-aid to the real issue. That's a valid claim, yet again VDOT ignored and dodged it each time it was mentioned. HO/T lanes aren't a "solution" or "long-term fix", it's merely a "band-aid". The GP lanes have barely gotten any better. The HO/T lanes are there so if you want to pay $20 - $30 to travel 10 miles and bypass stop and go traffic at 65 mph. They don't actually help anybody but those who want to pay. VDOT essentially gives a middle finger to anybody in the GP lanes with the continuous HO/T lane expansions and extensions, and no studies - not 1 - about widening the GP lanes beyond the existing 6-lanes, and have no plans in the near future to complete -any- study. It may cost a lot to actually build an 8-lane highway, but at least they could do a study. And not some little study that says we'd have to compensate Transurban so we're not going forth with any GP widening. They've tried that one before when localities have requested funding in SmartScale for 8-lane GP widening.
Maybe if I-95 was 8-lanes wide between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg, there would be more capacity on the highway overall, people would move faster on the GP lanes, and the tolls could be more reasonably priced in the HO/T lanes. But VDOT would then have to compensate Transurban - so nope, can't do that. A highway carrying over 125,000 - 220,000 AADT should be a minimum of 8-lanes under any realistic standard, maybe even 10-lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 09:36:40 AM
Question - What will be the charge to ride in the HOT lanes? How long will the tolls last? What will commuters get out of this project? Where is the money going, and how will we know the money is going to where it is planned to go?
Answer - Tolls will vary based on real‐time traffic conditions; a typical toll during rush hour is expected to be between $5‐$7.
I laughed hard when I saw that. A typical toll at 8:30PM is $5 - $7. At 3:00PM on a Friday heading southbound, it's more like $20 - $30 for like 10 miles. I would -never- pay that for such little benefit. I'm not -that- desperate to bypass the traffic - I could use that $20 - $30 on so much more useful things in life.
No, the typical toll (as in no major incidents outstanding) on Friday afternoon peak is more like $15 to $18 for the entire 28 miles. That document was for the first 21 miles that was opened in 2014.
A "typical toll" would be more like for 10 miles of usage because many people use shorter segments, and use is especially heavy between Woodbridge and Springfield. A "typical toll" in rush hour is not on a Friday, especially between May and September.
Once again, high tolls equals popularity, to keep the lanes from congesting, so that is a sign of success and widespread public acceptance.
Did you attend the CTB meeting Tuesday?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 10:02:09 AM
Maybe if I-95 was 8-lanes wide between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg, there would be more capacity on the highway overall, people would move faster on the GP lanes, and the tolls could be more reasonably priced in the HO/T lanes.
As said before, that could be argued to be a "band aid" as well, as if the latent demand wouldn't quickly speak for that new lane, unless it was tolled itself that would be the case.
If we want more than a "band aid" for I-95 north of Fredericksburg, this is what is needed, something that VDOT conducted EIS/location studies on about 20 years ago, but which Maryland obstructionism rendered moot.
Western Bypass of Washington area
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FWash_Bypass_W2_M.jpg&hash=97b9b30513ba75a7fa2d20a24331e5eb7ac0ef31)
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 11:52:31 AM
so that is a sign of success and widespread public acceptance.
What about everybody else sitting in the GP lanes? They must be loving it! VDOT's done so much over the past 20 years to improve their GP drive from Woodbridge south - not.
HO/T lanes aren't a solution to traffic issues. It's a band-aid to allow those who don't want to sit in congestion to easily bypass it. A true fix would be to expand I-95 to 8 GP lanes, and overhaul most of the interchanges on the corridor, add auxiliary lanes, and open the shoulder up during rush hour to add more capacity. I'd like to see VDOT's extensive studies they've done of this. *crickets*
You say the lanes are successful and have widespread public acceptance, and while that may be true, there's also a significant amount of people who will never use the lanes at all costs, and who don't support them. I'd say it's an even divide. You're looking at the fact because a lot of people that agree with your viewpoint, it must be favored by everybody, and those "few"
(in reality, around equally as much who support them) who don't like it are insignificant.
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 11:52:31 AM
As said before, that could be argued to be a "band aid" as well
So we agree - the HO/T lanes are nothing but a band-aid? An 8-laning of the GP lanes would not only simply widen it to 8-lanes, it would expand and reconstruct interchanges, add auxiliary lanes between each exit, and other improvements. Maybe even go bigger and do a 3+3+3+3. Transurban would loose it though.
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 11:52:31 AM
If we want more than a "band aid" for I-95 north of Fredericksburg, this is what is needed, something that VDOT conducted EIS/location studies on about 20 years ago, but which Maryland obstructionism rendered moot.
Western Bypass of Washington area
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FWash_Bypass_W2_M.jpg&hash=97b9b30513ba75a7fa2d20a24331e5eb7ac0ef31)
Just because Maryland won't let them -finish- it all the way, they could still build the segment between Fredericksburg and VA-7, or at least to I-66. It would also act as a freeway relocation for US-17 between Fredericksburg and I-66. They haven't bothered to build it in phases at least - they still could. Also, disagree with the 4 - 6 lane count being used for each segment. This highway should have a minimum of 8-lanes throughout the entire distance.
Using an estimate of $100 million per mile, the first 30 miles between I-95 and I-66 would be $3 billion to construct. That would be a start. And if it's phased out and funded over time, it may not have to be tolled.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 12:43:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 11:52:31 AM
As said before, that could be argued to be a "band aid" as well
So we agree - the HO/T lanes are nothing but a band-aid? An 8-laning of the GP lanes would not only simply widen it to 8-lanes, it would expand and reconstruct interchanges, add auxiliary lanes between each exit, and other improvements. Maybe even go bigger and do a 3+3+3+3.
Adding 2 and 3 congestion-managed lanes in the direction of peak traffic is a considerable addition to capacity, much more than adding one lane to a 3 lane roadway. Most of the interchanges are too far apart to warrant an auxiliary lane between them.
Rebuilding to 3+3+3+3 would be impossible in at least 2 places.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 12:43:14 PM
Just because Maryland won't let them -finish- it all the way, they could still build the segment between Fredericksburg and VA-7, or at least to I-66. It would also act as a freeway relocation for US-17 between Fredericksburg and I-66. They haven't bothered to build it in phases at least - they still could. Also, disagree with the 4 - 6 lane count being used for each segment. This highway should have a minimum of 8-lanes throughout the entire distance.
That was from the 1988 regional study. Building in Virginia only was considered, but was deemed to be too expensive and with too much environmental impacts for the relatively low traffic volumes (local at that) it would attract.
We already have the "stealth outer beltways" that the RE/T groups like to complain about, segments of VA-234, VA-28, VA-294, VA-123 and VA-286.
Other than the personal sniping, I feel like this discussion is a stuck record that is turning into the same rant over and over again. If you go back and read the full 29-page thread, you'll see some of the issues sprjus4 raises are legitimate and were mentioned way back at the beginning. On the other hand, I do feel that some of his arguments are plainly sloganeering. I will certainly concede that part of the reason for that position is that over the past ten years I've seen HO/T lane objectors use some of his talking points repeatedly without supporting them with any sort of substance, so I know when I see some of those phrases I have a bit of a bias against them due to the screeds I've seen elsewhere.
"Tax dollars" is an unconvincing argument to me because I don't have any problem with the idea of tolling a road to pay for ongoing maintenance and road improvements, though ideally further tax dollars would not then be used for that road unless there were to be a special tax district or some such. Put differently, I had no real objection to the McDonnell Administration's proposal to toll I-95 south of Fredericksburg, regardless of whether the road had originally been built with "tax dollars."
Also, regarding "tax dollars," my opinion on the issue has evolved a bit over time. I used to have a problem with imposing a toll outside of the old HOV hours. Over the years, and informed partly by I-66 inside the Beltway, I've come to a different conclusion. We used to have the reversible lanes be HOV-restricted from 6:30 to 9:00 and from 15:30 to 18:00. I don't think most people would seriously dispute that VDOT could have, had they so chosen, extended the HOV hours to cover a longer period, or even to be a 24/7 HOV operation (Maryland has that on US-50 between the Beltway and Route 301, though it's less elaborate than I-95). I also think most people probably wouldn't seriously dispute that VDOT could have imposed an HO/T system during the old HOV hours. Once I accept those two propositions, I have little difficulty with the concept that the 24/7 HO/T operation essentially means they did both of them–extended HOV hours and simultaneously offered the option to buy your way around that. (Certainly there are some people who claim to object to any sort of HOV restriction at any time, but those people are not to be taken seriously.)
The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.
"Typical toll" is a meaningless statistic to me because I interpret "typical" as being akin to the "mean" (what in grade school most people were taught was the "average")–that is, some people will pay less (that's me, on I-95) and others will pay more, and they're citing an overall statistic for all times the lanes are open. Of course Friday afternoon rush hour–which also starts earlier than rush hour on other days–is going to see higher tolls. Overnight hours are normally going to see lower tolls. A statistic about "average" or "typical" tolls is going to include those times in the overall calculation. Is that perhaps misleading to the average motorist who doesn't think about the issue? Perhaps, but from the comments I've seen under Washington Post articles and elsewhere, the average DC-area driver may not be intelligent enough to understand the variable tolling at all.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 19, 2019, 01:23:14 PM
The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.
Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?
Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to
personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value
with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.
Quote from: webny99 on June 19, 2019, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 19, 2019, 01:23:14 PM
The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.
Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?
Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.
What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes? (I know the answer from experience).
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 01:47:07 PM
What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes? (I know the answer from experience).
Quite frankly, the HO/T lanes haven't reduced a significant amount of congestion in the GP lanes. It's easy for you to say as you're flying by at 65+ mph paying $20 as everybody else is doing 15-25 mph in the GP lanes. Of course it's helped you. You're paying large amounts of money as each trip racks up, but you're getting that easy drive through Northern Virginia. Most people don't have that benefit.
webny99 is right. It's nothing more than a personal bypass and way out of congestion. It barely has helped the GP lanes, and the majority who choose not to pay the toll.
Quote from: webny99 on June 19, 2019, 01:39:17 PMGoing back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?
Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.
The other thing I expect should happen at some point is that slugging hours should expand. Perhaps this will gain some more urgency this fall when HO/T operations begin on I-395 and the free ride after 9:00 and 18:00 goes away, providing a real incentive to pick up slugs outside of the traditional HOV hours. So far that hasn't really happened–when I'm on the WMATA bus passing the Pork Chop in the afternoons, the few slugs who are still waiting out there around 18:15 or so look to be on the verge of giving up.
No doubt part of the problem is that drivers don't want to take the time to go over there if they don't expect there to be riders available, which in turn means riders don't want to walk over if they don't have a reasonable chance of a ride. It's sort of a vicious cycle, I guess. It's a difficulty any time someone wants to establish a slug line. There's been an effort to have one at the Springfield Metro this summer, but it hasn't really taken off. (Part of the problem is that the guy trying to organize it is insistent on promoting it on Facebook instead of listening to recommendations that he use the established slugging websites and their discussion boards.)
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 19, 2019, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 19, 2019, 01:23:14 PM
The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.
Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?
I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.
What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes? (I know the answer from experience).
I don't see how that's relevant. I thought we were talking about completely new lanes being added, not existing lanes switching to HO/T.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 01:47:07 PM
What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes? (I know the answer from experience).
Quite frankly, the HO/T lanes haven't reduced a significant amount of congestion in the GP lanes.
You're wrong, as major incidents and closures of the HOT lanes have resulted in major increases in congestion. Convert them back to HOV, with no more than 2 lanes, and close the Garrisonville extension, and then try to make that claim.
Quote from: webny99 on June 19, 2019, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 01:47:07 PM
What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes? (I know the answer from experience).
I don't see how that's relevant. I thought we were talking about completely new lanes being added, not existing lanes switching to HO/T.
See above.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 19, 2019, 01:54:57 PM
The other thing I expect should happen at some point is that slugging hours should expand. Perhaps this will gain some more urgency this fall when HO/T operations begin on I-395 and the free ride after 9:00 and 18:00 goes away, providing a real incentive to pick up slugs outside of the traditional HOV hours. So far that hasn't really happened–when I'm on the WMATA bus passing the Pork Chop in the afternoons, the few slugs who are still waiting out there around 18:15 or so look to be on the verge of giving up.
People who complain about the high tolls for HOT customers always forget that they help pay for the HOV-3+ to ride toll-free. That includes van pools which are commonly used for commuting.
Like you say slugging is a good way to add 1 or 2 people to your car in a safe and effective manner.
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 02:43:46 PM
You're wrong, as major incidents and closures of the HOT lanes have resulted in major increases in congestion. Convert them back to HOV, with no more than 2 lanes, and close the Garrisonville extension, and then try to make that claim.
Changes in travel patterns due to the HO/T lanes being added, etc. generally have occurred among those users, and when you suddenly have to close them, of course it's going to cause traffic backups horribly. I've not said they haven't helped at all, but it hasn't done a significant amount - nor have I expected them to.
Also, of course there's major increases in congestion when you have to reduce your speed from 65+ mph flying past the GP lanes backup and have to join them at 15 mph as you're pushed down to one lane to merge into their traffic flow. You paid your $20 for the 65+ mph one-way trip, you don't want to sit with those people.
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 02:43:46 PM
Convert them back to HOV, with no more than 2 lanes, and close the Garrisonville extension
If you did that, Transurban would lose it.
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 02:48:16 PM
People who complain about the high tolls for HOT customers always forget that they help pay for the HOV-3+ to ride toll-free.
How? They rode in the HOV lanes for free without any toll paying customers in the past with no issues. And even better - outside of rush hour, everybody could use the HOV lanes to bypass congestion on the mainline, mostly due to VDOT's horrible 4th lane drop design, with no issues.
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 10:32:40 PM
I just measured I-264 in 7 places and every place it has 12 foot lanes.
No, it does not.
(https://i.ibb.co/Bg62F0c/I26411-Feet-Lane.png)
Also, a snip from the FEIS of the Southeastern Parkway from 2008 -
QuoteI-264 was originally a state primary road, and the existing roadway is not consistent with interstate design standards. When it was accepted into the interstate system of highways, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) placed a condition on the acceptance that any major improvement construction activity would include improving the roadway to interstate standards. So implementing the EQSV would require applying interstate standards to the segments to be improved. As a result, the widening of the freeway from Rosemont Road to I-64 would include widening the existing 11-foot wide lanes to 12-feet in width and establishing shoulders.
The FHWA provided a waiver for this section because it's substandard and does not meet interstate standards. If you still aren't convinced, I can try to dig up other documentation from VDOT. It's always been quite obvious from my experience driving that highway frequently - the lanes have always felt somewhat narrower compared to normal 12 foot lanes that feel wider compared to I-264.
Quote from: webny99 on June 19, 2019, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 19, 2019, 01:23:14 PM
The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.
Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?
Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.
This.
Quote from: famartin on June 19, 2019, 06:10:51 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 19, 2019, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 19, 2019, 01:23:14 PM
The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.
Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?
Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.
This.
Seconded.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 04:17:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2019, 10:32:40 PM
I just measured I-264 in 7 places and every place it has 12 foot lanes.
No, it does not.
Give it up. The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.
You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.
Don't laugh, I have done it many times. That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.
You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.
I asked you twice whether you were at the CTB meeting Tuesday... you have not answered so that would seem to indicate that you were there. I think I was the only other man there without a coat and tie... maybe you noticed me.
Now that the new 4-lane US-301 Potomac River Bridge is about to start construction, a freeway eastern bypass of Washington along VA-207 and US-301 would be a major reliever of and alternate to the I-95 corridor.
Washington Bypass Study
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Wash_Bypass.html
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FWash_Bypass_Studies_Cover_XL.jpg&hash=d4df8f3e0762f5fe7c92166a2066a9796b56fa9d)
Maryland's proposal in 1990 was to build an eastern bypass, with alternatives ranging up to 93 miles in total length, with the various alternates costing from $1.4 to $1.7 billion (estimated total cost for engineering, right-of-way and construction in 1990 dollars). Virginia officials agreed with Maryland's plan, but wanted their own western bypass; it would have been in a similar price range, and up to 82 miles long.
Radical environmentalist/transit groups have a conniption fit whenever the subject arises of building one or more of the outer Washington bypasses. Their obstructionist tactics are, in my opinion, selfish and misguided. A regional bypass is needed to handle current and future traffic volumes, and if the RE/T groups are worried about "sprawl" following the building of these highways, then wide interchange spacing could be utilized to sharply limit future development near the interchanges.
As far as financing, there are a variety of potential sources of funding to build these highways. One or a combination of the following could be utilized: conventional state and federal road user tax revenues, state-issued toll revenue bonds, and private capital through public-private partnerships. Utilizing the last two sources would mean that the highway would have a toll, but I think that if tolls are needed to finance these highways, then I am all for it.
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:28:59 PM
Give it up. The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.
You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.
Don't laugh, I have done it many times. That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.
You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.
I provided documentation from VDOT that not only indicated that, but even mentioned there was a condition with the FHWA that any major improvement project would have to widen the lanes to 12 feet.
Did you miss that part, or is VDOT just lying? Measure an individual lane on Google Maps, not the entire roadway.
And I'd rather not go out at 2am and get hit by a car. There's still traffic that uses it at night, and the gaps between them don't last that long. US-460 on the other hand is very lightly traveled at night and doesn't see nearly the volume that I-264 does.
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 09:42:50 PM
Now that the new 4-lane US-301 Potomac River Bridge is about to start construction, a freeway eastern bypass of Washington along VA-207 and US-301 would be a major reliever of and alternate to the I-95 corridor.
Washington Bypass Study
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Wash_Bypass.html
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FWash_Bypass_Studies_Cover_XL.jpg&hash=d4df8f3e0762f5fe7c92166a2066a9796b56fa9d)
Maryland's proposal in 1990 was to build an eastern bypass, with alternatives ranging up to 93 miles in total length, with the various alternates costing from $1.4 to $1.7 billion (estimated total cost for engineering, right-of-way and construction in 1990 dollars). Virginia officials agreed with Maryland's plan, but wanted their own western bypass; it would have been in a similar price range, and up to 82 miles long.
Radical environmentalist/transit groups have a conniption fit whenever the subject arises of building one or more of the outer Washington bypasses. Their obstructionist tactics are, in my opinion, selfish and misguided. A regional bypass is needed to handle current and future traffic volumes, and if the RE/T groups are worried about "sprawl" following the building of these highways, then wide interchange spacing could be utilized to sharply limit future development near the interchanges.
As far as financing, there are a variety of potential sources of funding to build these highways. One or a combination of the following could be utilized: conventional state and federal road user tax revenues, state-issued toll revenue bonds, and private capital through public-private partnerships. Utilizing the last two sources would mean that the highway would have a toll, but I think that if tolls are needed to finance these highways, then I am all for it.
The only issue that any true I-95 relief route needs to be a minimum of 8 lanes in order to adequately handle traffic volumes. The 4-lane bridge replacement works on an arterial highway corridor like US-301, but to make it an interstate-grade bypass, you'd need another 4-lane bridge built parallel to the upcoming 4-lane bridge project. I've supported an eastern bypass in the past, but one of my main concerns is once at the US-50 freeway, what is the most efficient routing for the heavy amount of traffic using the new bypass to get back to I-95? I-97 could work, but you'd need to expand that to likely 8-lanes, and it would still dump into Baltimore.
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:28:59 PM
I asked you twice whether you were at the CTB meeting Tuesday... you have not answered so that would seem to indicate that you were there. I think I was the only other man there without a coat and tie... maybe you noticed me.
I did not... I haven't been to Richmond in a while, and not to mention have never been to a CTB meeting. It's easier for you to go to these meetings as it's right there, but that's a 2 hour drive back and forth, and frankly I've not had a lot of time on my schedule to go on a trip like that.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:28:59 PM
Give it up. The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.
You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.
Don't laugh, I have done it many times. That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.
You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.
I provided documentation from VDOT that not only indicated that, but even mentioned there was a condition with the FHWA that any major improvement project would have to widen the lanes to 12 feet.
Did you miss that part, or is VDOT just lying? Measure an individual lane on Google Maps, not the entire roadway.
And I'd rather not go out at 2am and get hit by a car. There's still traffic that uses it at night, and the gaps between them don't last that long. US-460 on the other hand is very lightly traveled at night and doesn't see nearly the volume that I-264 does.
An FEIS of the Southeastern Parkway? Why are they opining on I-264, and what is the context of the comments? And yes even VDOT or a consultant that prepares a document could make a mistake.
GMSV is fuzzy when you zoom in on a roadway, and yes I would measure the entire directional roadway for precision, and GMSV imagery is not precise at that level of zoom.
Go out there and measure it at 3:00 am on a Sunday morning. You will find sufficient gaps in traffic.
VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-288 an Interstate due to 3 foot left shoulders on 10 miles of the route, saying that 4 feet was the standard, and that was the only lack.
VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-895 an Interstate due to a 62 mph design curve near the sewage plants, saying that 70 mph was the standard, and that was the only lack. 70 mph is the rural standard but I countered with the comment that that area should be considered urban due to the sewage plant and industries constraining that segment.
Trivial reasons but that is what they said.
Please stay on-topic. VA 288, VA 895, and the Southeastern Pkwy are not related to the HOT Lanes discussion. -Mark
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 11:45:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:28:59 PM
Give it up. The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.
You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.
Don't laugh, I have done it many times. That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.
You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.
I provided documentation from VDOT that not only indicated that, but even mentioned there was a condition with the FHWA that any major improvement project would have to widen the lanes to 12 feet.
Did you miss that part, or is VDOT just lying? Measure an individual lane on Google Maps, not the entire roadway.
And I'd rather not go out at 2am and get hit by a car. There's still traffic that uses it at night, and the gaps between them don't last that long. US-460 on the other hand is very lightly traveled at night and doesn't see nearly the volume that I-264 does.
An FEIS of the Southeastern Parkway? Why are they opining on I-264, and what is the context of the comments? And yes even VDOT or a consultant that prepares a document could make a mistake.
GMSV is fuzzy when you zoom in on a roadway, and yes I would measure the entire directional roadway for precision, and GMSV imagery is not precise at that level of zoom.
Go out there and measure it at 3:00 am on a Sunday morning. You will find sufficient gaps in traffic.
VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-288 an Interstate due to 3 foot left shoulders on 10 miles of the route, saying that 4 feet was the standard, and that was the only lack.
VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-895 an Interstate due to a 62 mph design curve near the sewage plants, saying that 70 mph was the standard, and that was the only lack. 70 mph is the rural standard but I countered with the comment that that area should be considered urban due to the sewage plant and industries constraining that segment.
Trivial reasons but that is what they said.
I wonder if VDOT feels like they have more freedom on the non-interstate highways, with the lesser standards, and thus don't want to designate them as such? My only thought on that...
Quote from: sprjus4The only issue that any true I-95 relief route needs to be a minimum of 8 lanes in order to adequately handle traffic volumes.
Only in those locations with heavy local traffic...basically Waldorf north. There's not *THAT* much through traffic on 95...the corridor study done for VTRANS 2040 (http://www.vtrans.org/resources/VMTP2025-Needs-Assessment/CoSS-Profiles/VTRANS2040_CoSS_K_WashtoNC_FINAL%2010232015.pdf) found that only about 10% of the I-95 corridor traffic in Northern Virginia is through traffic...without an origin or destination in the area. Given the highest traffic volume on I-95 in NoVA is around 250K, this is even lower than the back-of-the-napkin 30K estimate I came up with. Even if it was closer to 50K (which it probably is some weekends) and adding in local traffic, it would be manageable with 4 lanes from the Nice Bridge south...and that's assuming that ALL of the I-95 through traffic would divert over to the 301 corridor.
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2019, 08:00:45 AM
Quote from: sprjus4The only issue that any true I-95 relief route needs to be a minimum of 8 lanes in order to adequately handle traffic volumes.
Only in those locations with heavy local traffic...basically Waldorf north. There's not *THAT* much through traffic on 95...the corridor study done for VTRANS 2040 (http://www.vtrans.org/resources/VMTP2025-Needs-Assessment/CoSS-Profiles/VTRANS2040_CoSS_K_WashtoNC_FINAL%2010232015.pdf) found that only about 10% of the I-95 corridor traffic in Northern Virginia is through traffic...without an origin or destination in the area. Given the highest traffic volume on I-95 in NoVA is around 250K, this is even lower than the back-of-the-napkin 30K estimate I came up with. Even if it was closer to 50K (which it probably is some weekends) and adding in local traffic, it would be manageable with 4 lanes from the Nice Bridge south...and that's assuming that ALL of the I-95 through traffic would divert over to the 301 corridor.
Maybe 6 lanes... if you've ever been on US-301 / the Nice bridge corridor on a heavy travel weekend, it's pretty packed with the 4-lanes... it felt almost like I-64 in free-flowing conditions, but still packed.
I'd still build another 4 lane bridge and stripe it as 3. Plan for the future.
Quote from: famartin on June 20, 2019, 06:44:37 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 11:45:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:28:59 PM
Give it up. The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.
You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.
Don't laugh, I have done it many times. That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.
You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.
I provided documentation from VDOT that not only indicated that, but even mentioned there was a condition with the FHWA that any major improvement project would have to widen the lanes to 12 feet.
Did you miss that part, or is VDOT just lying? Measure an individual lane on Google Maps, not the entire roadway.
And I'd rather not go out at 2am and get hit by a car. There's still traffic that uses it at night, and the gaps between them don't last that long. US-460 on the other hand is very lightly traveled at night and doesn't see nearly the volume that I-264 does.
An FEIS of the Southeastern Parkway? Why are they opining on I-264, and what is the context of the comments? And yes even VDOT or a consultant that prepares a document could make a mistake.
GMSV is fuzzy when you zoom in on a roadway, and yes I would measure the entire directional roadway for precision, and GMSV imagery is not precise at that level of zoom.
Go out there and measure it at 3:00 am on a Sunday morning. You will find sufficient gaps in traffic.
VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-288 an Interstate due to 3 foot left shoulders on 10 miles of the route, saying that 4 feet was the standard, and that was the only lack.
VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-895 an Interstate due to a 62 mph design curve near the sewage plants, saying that 70 mph was the standard, and that was the only lack. 70 mph is the rural standard but I countered with the comment that that area should be considered urban due to the sewage plant and industries constraining that segment.
Trivial reasons but that is what they said.
I wonder if VDOT feels like they have more freedom on the non-interstate highways, with the lesser standards, and thus don't want to designate them as such? My only thought on that...
The 80s and 90s part don't meet interstate standards if they have 3 foot shoulders, though VA-895 was originally intended for I-895 and was built to full interstate standards, but something to do with the toll prevented that. The 62mph design speed claim on the curve is no reason it can't be an interstate highway - hearing that one was a first.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 09:07:39 AM
Maybe 6 lanes... if you've ever been on US-301 / the Nice bridge corridor on a heavy travel weekend, it's pretty packed with the 4-lanes... it felt almost like I-64 in free-flowing conditions, but still packed.
Four freeway lanes flow -much- smoother than four arterial lanes. Per lane capacity of about 2,000 VPH compared to about 800. Plus all those traffic signals.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:51:32 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 09:07:39 AM
Maybe 6 lanes... if you've ever been on US-301 / the Nice bridge corridor on a heavy travel weekend, it's pretty packed with the 4-lanes... it felt almost like I-64 in free-flowing conditions, but still packed.
Four freeway lanes flow -much- smoother than four arterial lanes. Per lane capacity of about 2,000 VPH compared to about 800. Plus all those traffic signals.
I'm referring to the 23 mile stretch between Port Royal and Ruther Glen - no signals at all, and no obstacles for traffic flow. It flows like a freeway, just without the frontage roads and interchanges.
And don't give me "the private driveways and cross roads could be the issue" because I rarely see traffic pull out of there, and it certainly isn't the reason traffic is packed.
Look if they wanted to build it to just 4-lanes, they can but I see issues in the long-run.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 11:07:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:51:32 AM
Four freeway lanes flow -much- smoother than four arterial lanes. Per lane capacity of about 2,000 VPH compared to about 800. Plus all those traffic signals.
I'm referring to the 23 mile stretch between Port Royal and Ruther Glen - no signals at all, and no obstacles for traffic flow. It flows like a freeway, just without the frontage roads and interchanges.
And don't give me "the private driveways and cross roads could be the issue" because I rarely see traffic pull out of there, and it certainly isn't the reason traffic is packed.
I see at least 25 at-grade intersections, plus adjacent business strips in two places. Could handle more than 800 VPH but I doubt it.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 11:07:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:51:32 AM
Four freeway lanes flow -much- smoother than four arterial lanes. Per lane capacity of about 2,000 VPH compared to about 800. Plus all those traffic signals.
I'm referring to the 23 mile stretch between Port Royal and Ruther Glen - no signals at all, and no obstacles for traffic flow. It flows like a freeway, just without the frontage roads and interchanges.
And don't give me "the private driveways and cross roads could be the issue" because I rarely see traffic pull out of there, and it certainly isn't the reason traffic is packed.
I see at least 25 at-grade intersections, plus adjacent business strips in two places. Could handle more than 800 VPH but I doubt it.
So you're claiming that's the reason traffic gets packed, but still flows at 60-70 mph? It's likely it'd still be that way if it was freeway.
By the way, just curious, would a freeway be a mere upgrade of US-301 of VA-207 to interstate standards, or new location facility within Virginia? Obviously in Maryland, most would be new location, but how could it work in Virginia?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 11:07:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:51:32 AM
Four freeway lanes flow -much- smoother than four arterial lanes. Per lane capacity of about 2,000 VPH compared to about 800. Plus all those traffic signals.
I'm referring to the 23 mile stretch between Port Royal and Ruther Glen - no signals at all, and no obstacles for traffic flow. It flows like a freeway, just without the frontage roads and interchanges. And don't give me "the private driveways and cross roads could be the issue" because I rarely see traffic pull out of there, and it certainly isn't the reason traffic is packed.
I see at least 25 at-grade intersections, plus adjacent business strips in two places. Could handle more than 800 VPH but I doubt it.
So you're claiming that's the reason traffic gets packed, but still flows at 60-70 mph? It's likely it'd still be that way if it was freeway.
The only claim I made is about the capacity of the two designs (above). That many intersections would impact the flow and throughput.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 12:33:48 PM
By the way, just curious, would a freeway be a mere upgrade of US-301 of VA-207 to interstate standards, or new location facility within Virginia? Obviously in Maryland, most would be new location, but how could it work in Virginia?
I would have to do a more detailed evaluation, but probably a lot of it in Virginia would be more suited to a new location, it would depend on costs, environmental impacts, and right-of-way impacts.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 11:14:31 PM
I've supported an [Washington] eastern bypass in the past, but one of my main concerns is once at the US-50 freeway, what is the most efficient routing for the heavy amount of traffic using the new bypass to get back to I-95? I-97 could work, but you'd need to expand that to likely 8-lanes, and it would still dump into Baltimore.
It would tie into I-97 and the I-895 Harbor Tunnel Thruway, and traffic could bypass Baltimore on the eastern part of the I-695 Beltway. The Key Bridge only carries about 30,000 AADT today.
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 11:52:31 AM
No, the typical toll (as in no major incidents outstanding) on Friday afternoon peak is more like $15 to $18 for the entire 28 miles.
Currently, Transurban reports the toll for the I-95 Express Lanes between Springfield and Garrisonville Rd is $27.20 and there's no major incidents currently occurring. A little while ago, it was $25. I'll report if it gets higher.
(https://i.ibb.co/v1RJTGm/Transurban2720-Toll.png)
Like I said, $20 - $30.
A quick check at 511virginia.org reports the same number adding up the prices on the overhead sign.
Updates:
Update @ 2:30pm - Toll at $30.00 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 2:50pm - Toll at $31.10 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 3:00pm - Toll at $31.95 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 3:10pm - Toll at $31.55 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 3:35pm - Toll at $32.60 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 4:40pm - Toll at $33.35 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
(A quick check now shows I-495 at $18.10, making an entire I-95/I-495 trip $51.45)(https://i.ibb.co/GtkWYsp/Transurban3335-Toll.png)
Monday through Thursday at 515 pm the toll to use 95 from the beltway to Garrisonville is typically $20-25 if there are no incidents. It is also typically 30-45 minutes faster.
At 5 am northbound this toll is about $10. Mainline 95 NB at this time is busy but moving a fair bit better than the return trip SB but there are backups in Dale City and sometimes Springfield. The horrible Garrisonville backups have still not returned following the short HOT lane extension south.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 21, 2019, 02:10:25 PM
typically $20-25 if there are no incidents.
That's my point - $20 - $30, not $15 - $18.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 21, 2019, 02:10:25 PM
The horrible Garrisonville backups have still not returned following the short HOT lane extension south.
It certainly hasn't gotten better - it just moved the backup 2 miles south.
The traffic chokes around that area every day - including right now.
Once the Fredericksburg extension is completed, hopefully as HO/T traffic will split to the new thru / local lanes, there will be enough of a balance where the lanes can evenly drop off, and smoothly release traffic out of them far better then the current endpoint, and certainly better than the old Garrisonville exit you mentioned. And not to mention, if the traffic splits between local / thru at that location, it will split into 3 lanes of either local or 3 lanes of thru and have far more capacity to handle them.
I was referring to northbound in the morning with the backups gone still.
Southbound is a mixed bag. Some days the merge is smooth with no backups in HOT lanes or the mainline. This is partly dependent on whether the stafford exit is backing up or not.
Most of the time the mainline is slower through the HOT lane merge but it is rare for the HOT lanes to backup much at all. Overall the current merge location works better than the previous location and is way better than the Dumfries merge point was.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 21, 2019, 02:36:47 PM
Most of the time the mainline is slower through the HOT lane merge but it is rare for the HOT lanes to backup much at all
That's the thing - it horribly congests everybody in the mainline. I'm hoping once the Fredericksburg Extension is completed and the Rappahannock River Crossing project is completed, it will be a much smoother merge point for traffic, and help the mainline lanes flow a lot quicker. If it indeed works - then I'll actually admit the HO/T lanes have helped traffic flow in the GP lanes. Once that's done, add a 4th GP lane, and I think I-95 will be much better overall.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 02:38:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 21, 2019, 02:36:47 PM
Most of the time the mainline is slower through the HOT lane merge but it is rare for the HOT lanes to backup much at all
That's the thing - it horribly congests everybody in the mainline. I'm hoping once the Fredericksburg Extension is completed and the Rappahannock River Crossing project is completed, it will be a much smoother merge point for traffic, and help the mainline lanes flow a lot quicker. If it indeed works - then I'll actually admit the HO/T lanes have helped traffic flow in the GP lanes. Once that's done, add a 4th GP lane, and I think I-95 will be much better overall.
While the merge should indeed be much better, there are still some who would like to see the HOT lanes further extended to Massaponax as originally planned. Will this be necessary? Perhaps so if VA can't come up with the money to at the very least add an additional GP lane in each direction from the local thru/lane merge(Exit 130) to Exit 126. 6 lanes immediately choking down to 3 is never a good idea anywhere, let alone on a road like I-95.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 21, 2019, 05:26:09 PM
While the merge should indeed be much better, there are still some who would like to see the HOT lanes further extended to Massaponax as originally planned. Will this be necessary?
Past VA-3, traffic is usually fine heading southbound... now northbound is a different story, that backup starts just a little south of US-1. The 70 mph zone also starts south of US-1.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 05:37:02 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 21, 2019, 05:26:09 PM
While the merge should indeed be much better, there are still some who would like to see the HOT lanes further extended to Massaponax as originally planned. Will this be necessary?
Past VA-3, traffic is usually fine heading southbound... now northbound is a different story, that backup starts just a little south of US-1. The 70 mph zone also starts south of US-1.
Agreed but if widening I-95 to 8 lanes down to Richmond is the goal, then that would be the place to start. Regarding the weekend northbound traffic (which in my experiences can start from as far back as even the Thornburg Exit(118)), I could definitely see backups resulting from the northbound local/thru lane merge. How bad would this be? Hard to tell but certainly better than the current situation in IMO.
Slightly off topic, but I again believe that the Fredricksburg area would also tremendously benefit from more exits. It sounds like an Exit 131 (a connection to the Carl D. Silver Pkwy) is seriously being considered, but an Exit 128 (Harrison Road) and an Exit 124 (Potential future road) would also be extremely beneficial in distributing the amount of local traffic getting on and off I-95.
Extend the HOT lanes down to Danville while we're at it. Lord help us if people consider something other than living in the middle of nowhere.
These arguments over prices and merge points have become so banal. It's a major metropolitan area, and the moment you decide to live at or beyond it's fringes, it shouldn't be surprising that it's going to cost in terms of time and/or money to overcome that distance.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 21, 2019, 06:58:00 PM
Extend the HOT lanes down to Danville while we're at it. Lord help us if people consider something other than living in the middle of nowhere.
These arguments over prices and merge points have become so banal. It's a major metropolitan area, and the moment you decide to live at or beyond it's fringes, it shouldn't be surprising that it's going to cost in terms of time and/or money to overcome that distance.
No its not surprising. Also not surprising people want to, considering the insane cost of living inside the beltway (and even in many areas just outside of it).
What is surprising is that local jurisdictions refuse to take ownership of the neverending congestion problem. They could hold traffic in check, if they just restrained development. But that's not going to happen as long as development equals money, so...
It's not so simple in Virginia for "local jurisdictions" to "restrain development." The reasons why are a bit complex to explain in this sort of forum, but essentially their powers are quite constrained.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 21, 2019, 10:33:04 PM
It's not so simple in Virginia for "local jurisdictions" to "restrain development." The reasons why are a bit complex to explain in this sort of forum, but essentially their powers are quite constrained.
Don't approve rezonings, don't approve permits, etc. for each development.
Some of the development down here in Chesapeake has been prevented by City Council, and all of the rapid development going up all over the place is approved each and every one by City Council. If the jurisdiction doesn't want it, don't approve it.
No photos, but work crews are clearly making progress on the new concrete barriers. The southernmost portion of the 395 HOT lanes extension (between the Turkeycock crossover and roughly Seminary) looks effectively to be done - the third lane is painted in place of the old shoulder.
Also noticed on a run today, from my position on the Mt Vernon Trail right below the 14th street bridge, that there are new HOT lane information (i.e. price) signs. If they ever extend the HOT lanes into DC, there's already plenty of infrastructure in place right up to the city line...
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 16, 2019, 10:50:34 PM
No photos, but work crews are clearly making progress on the new concrete barriers. The southernmost portion of the 395 HOT lanes extension (between the Turkeycock crossover and roughly Seminary) looks effectively to be done - the third lane is painted in place of the old shoulder.
I rode it a few weeks ago, on the HOV lanes from D.C., and it is indeed looking near completion.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 16, 2019, 10:50:34 PM
Also noticed on a run today, from my position on the Mt Vernon Trail right below the 14th street bridge, that there are new HOT lane information (i.e. price) signs. If they ever extend the HOT lanes into DC, there's already plenty of infrastructure in place right up to the city line...
No need, as the reversible roadway divides into two 2-lane roadways each way at Eads Street near the Pentagon and carries that across the center 14th Street Bridge, and those split into lanes to/from 14th Street and lanes to/from the Southwest Freeway (I-395 GP).
Based on what I can see from the buses while commuting, it appears there's still a decent amount of paving and barrier work to be done between Shirlington and the Pentagon and in the area immediately north of Turkeycock, but they've definitely made excellent progress and it looks like they ought to be ready to begin HO/T operations either sometime in October or at worst by Thanksgiving.
I don't even understand why it gets so congested there so much. I know it's near 200,000 VPD. I think they are squished. Make bypasses. I don't think they can widen the main highway unless you build more bridges and shift the highway. I try to avoid that area and take 301 if I have to. It's fun driving through there but the only thing is not fun is the traffic. :-/
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 02:29:35 AM
I don't even understand why it gets so congested there so much. I know it's near 200,000 VPD. I think they are squished. Make bypasses. I don't think they can widen the main highway unless you build more bridges and shift the highway. I try to avoid that area and take 301 if I have to. It's fun driving through there but the only thing is not fun is the traffic. :-/
It's certainly possible to widen the GP lanes to 4 each way. Plenty of room. You'd have to widen some overpasses, and replace a couple of bridges here and there, but it certainly is possible.
It gets congested because 200,000 AADT on a 6-lane freeway is overloading it. The HO/T lanes provide -some- relief, especially for those who can afford it, but the general purpose lanes are still clogged.
A bypass proposal has been touted for years and even studied, but both states (Maryland and Virginia) can't agree on where it will go, and there's no funding to build a 80+ mile freeway, plus upgrading other interstates / freeways it will tie into to accommodate the additional traffic.
HO/T lanes seem to currently be the only answer for congestion relief, at least in Northern Virginia on I-95. I'll think different once VDOT does a detailed evaluation of widening to 8-lanes GP in their I-95 Corridor Study. I'd be shocked if they do, but it would be a good step.
Widening isn't going to happen, certainly not along 395. For one, there are legal non-competition restrictions on improvements along the corridor as part of the HOT lane deal, plus even if there weren't, there simply isn't any space and there's no political interest in it (or desire for that matter).
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 25, 2019, 11:39:26 AM
Widening isn't going to happen, certainly not along 395. For one, there are legal non-competition restrictions on improvements along the corridor as part of the HOT lane deal, plus even if there weren't, there simply isn't any space and there's no political interest in it (or desire for that matter).
I-395 is not I-95. There's plenty of room on I-95.
And of course there's no desire. That would involve the state actually spending money and not giving the work to private investors and letting them toll every and all new capacity.
I've lost faith in VDOT for any large I-95 improvement. Until they show they're willing to actually do the work or at least study it, they're a joke. They're expanding I-95 in North Carolina, a freeway with 50,000 - 60,000 AADT to 8-lanes. We can't even do that to a freeway with 200,000 AADT, and don't tell me the magical HO/T lanes solve that problem 100%. They don't.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 11:43:50 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 25, 2019, 11:39:26 AM
Widening isn't going to happen, certainly not along 395. For one, there are legal non-competition restrictions on improvements along the corridor as part of the HOT lane deal, plus even if there weren't, there simply isn't any space and there's no political interest in it (or desire for that matter).
I-395 is not I-95. There's plenty of room on I-95.
And of course there's no desire. That would involve the state actually spending money and not giving the work to private investors and letting them toll every and all new capacity.
I've lost faith in VDOT for any large I-95 improvement. Until they show they're willing to actually do the work or at least study it, they're a joke. They're expanding I-95 in North Carolina, a freeway with 50,000 - 60,000 AADT to 8-lanes. We can't even do that to a freeway with 200,000 AADT, and don't tell me the magical HO/T lanes solve that problem 100%. They don't.
Yeah they got room to widen it. They should. They are focusing on express lanes. I think they should widen the GP lanes to 10 or even 12 if possible.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 11:43:50 AM
I've lost faith in VDOT for any large I-95 improvement. Until they show they're willing to actually do the work or at least study it, they're a joke. They're expanding I-95 in North Carolina, a freeway with 50,000 - 60,000 AADT to 8-lanes. We can't even do that to a freeway with 200,000 AADT, and don't tell me the magical HO/T lanes solve that problem 100%. They don't.
Right. 102 miles of GP widening VA I-95, a 43 mile Interstate I-95 bypass, and 30 miles of reversibles construction, and Sprjus4 says VDOT hasn't improved I-95, and he again invokes the magical Tar Heel State.
Quote from: Beltway on July 25, 2019, 05:38:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 11:43:50 AM
I've lost faith in VDOT for any large I-95 improvement. Until they show they're willing to actually do the work or at least study it, they're a joke. They're expanding I-95 in North Carolina, a freeway with 50,000 - 60,000 AADT to 8-lanes. We can't even do that to a freeway with 200,000 AADT, and don't tell me the magical HO/T lanes solve that problem 100%. They don't.
Sprjus4 says VDOT hasn't improved I-95, and he again invokes the magical Tar Heel State.
They are going to improve it at least 5-10 years hopefully. It sucks
Here's the reality...
Quote from: Beltway on July 25, 2019, 05:38:16 PM
102 miles of GP widening VA I-95
80s. 40 years ago.
Quote from: Beltway on July 25, 2019, 05:38:16 PM
a 43 mile Interstate I-95 bypass
80s and 90s. 30 - 40 years ago.
Quote from: Beltway on July 25, 2019, 05:38:16 PM
and 30 miles of reversibles construction
Transurban and privatized toll road. Hardly any relief to the GP lanes and of course they benefit you because you fly by at 65+ mph paying $20 during rush hour as you watch everybody jammed up in traffic by a horrible flaw in VDOT's design for a lane drop, and congestion thruout overall, who can't afford it or who can but don't feel like wasting their money on that. I don't count that as a improvement to the GP lanes on VA I-95. Again, VDOT has failed in this category by handing their work off to private companies looking to make a profit.
VDOT has not done any massive expansions on I-95 between Woodbridge and Richmond to the GP lanes since the 80s and have no plan to. It's an overloaded 6-lane freeway that warrants expansion and has for at least two decades. The HO/T lanes haven't done much overall except for people like you who see them as a tremendous improvement because you use them every opportunity you get. Sure, they're nice to have, but a free general purpose improvement is -needed-. That's quite obvious.
However, VDOT is being lazy by again giving all the work to Transurban and calling it an improvement, the solution to I-95 congestion issues, and the way to unlock gridlock. It's quite obvious based on the latest capacity improvements once Transurban came in and took all the hard lifting off VDOT's hands...
Before Transurban:
Springfield Interchange
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement
I-95 8-lane widening from I-495 to VA-123
After Transurban:
I-95 HO/T lanes
I-495 HO/T lanes
I-395 HO/T lanes
I-66 HO/T lanes
I-495 HO/T lane extension
I-95 HO/T lane extension
All of the above are -facts-.
To be honest, I-95 should have been widened to 8-lanes in the 80s between Richmond and the Beltway. A similar approach to how I-95 is being widened in North Carolina. Again, poor future planning on VDOT's part. They did I-295 right at least.
Funny how the people from nowhere, VA tend to get more worked up over the amount of freeway lanes than locals...
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 25, 2019, 08:11:48 PM
Funny how the people from nowhere, VA tend to get more worked up over the amount of freeway lanes than locals...
I do not like VDOT-bashing, because most of it is NOT justified. I always find it amusing that some of the most-enthused bashers of VDOT are Virginia residents.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 25, 2019, 08:11:48 PM
Funny how the people from nowhere, VA tend to get more worked up over the amount of freeway lanes than locals...
Happens a lot with NJ as well!
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 25, 2019, 08:11:48 PM
Funny how the people from nowhere, VA tend to get more worked up over the amount of freeway lanes than locals...
these people are the ones most likely to be using those freeways for long-distance travel. adding an hour of traffic to a 4-hour trip is significant. adding 2 hours of traffic to an 8-hour trip might mean a hotel stay - not everyone can tolerate a car for long stretches at a time.
Quote from: odditude on July 26, 2019, 02:26:03 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 25, 2019, 08:11:48 PM
Funny how the people from nowhere, VA tend to get more worked up over the amount of freeway lanes than locals...
these people are the ones most likely to be using those freeways for long-distance travel. adding an hour of traffic to a 4-hour trip is significant. adding 2 hours of traffic to an 8-hour trip might mean a hotel stay - not everyone can tolerate a car for long stretches at a time.
These are also the people who usually can avoid the heart of rush hours, when traffic volumes are lower, and when the HOT tolls are a lot lower than the rush hour cost that keeps getting repeated here.
Quote from: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 03:47:43 PM
These are also the people who usually can avoid the heart of rush hours, when traffic volumes are lower, and when the HOT tolls are a lot lower than the rush hour cost that keeps getting repeated here.
Yeah, not everyone can just "easily avoid the heart of rush hour". You may be able to, good for you.
Quote from: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 03:47:43 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 26, 2019, 02:26:03 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 25, 2019, 08:11:48 PM
Funny how the people from nowhere, VA tend to get more worked up over the amount of freeway lanes than locals...
these people are the ones most likely to be using those freeways for long-distance travel. adding an hour of traffic to a 4-hour trip is significant. adding 2 hours of traffic to an 8-hour trip might mean a hotel stay - not everyone can tolerate a car for long stretches at a time.
These are also the people who usually can avoid the heart of rush hours, when traffic volumes are lower, and when the HOT tolls are a lot lower than the rush hour cost that keeps getting repeated here.
the original comment was regarding the number of lanes, not the toll amount. also, on longer drives, traffic in one area can lead to a cascading failure of your driving schedule - "avoiding rush hour" can quickly turn into "being stuck in the middle of it."
Quote from: odditude on July 26, 2019, 04:37:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 03:47:43 PM
These are also the people who usually can avoid the heart of rush hours, when traffic volumes are lower, and when the HOT tolls are a lot lower than the rush hour cost that keeps getting repeated here.
the original comment was regarding the number of lanes, not the toll amount. also, on longer drives, traffic in one area can lead to a cascading failure of your driving schedule - "avoiding rush hour" can quickly turn into "being stuck in the middle of it."
I'm sure that can happen, but in 50 years of traveling thru the Baltimore-Washington area I am hard pressed to think of a case where that has happened to me personally. Highest peak hours are a small part of the 24 hour day and simply on a basis of randomization it is not hard to avoid them if you are a long distance traveler.
I think we can all agree that I-95 should have 8 GP lanes between I-295 & I-495 (really to Woodbridge nowadays as north of here already has the 8 lanes).
The express lanes should go no further south than VA 3. Most of the DC commuter traffic south of here use the next exit (Exit 126 near Massaponax) and traffic is free flowing past this point even during the rush, and really only becomes an issue Fri-Sun.
Quote from: plain on July 26, 2019, 05:46:27 PM
I think we can all agree that I-95 should have 8 GP lanes between I-295 & I-495 (really to Woodbridge nowadays as north of here already has the 8 lanes).
The express lanes should go no further south than VA 3. Most of the DC commuter traffic south of here use the next exit (Exit 126 near Massaponax) and traffic is free flowing past this point even during the rush, and really only becomes an issue Fri-Sun.
Agree on all points. I would also point out any new GP capacity added should be un-tolled and free to all, similar to the 8-lane widening that occurred north of Woodbridge. That would have the maximum benefit to all motorists.
Shoulder lanes should also be considered during peak hours north of Fredericksburg along with 4 GP lanes each way. That way you can get it up to 5 lanes each way plus the HO/T capacity. That would be a significant benefit.
Yeah, "avoiding rush hour" is not an exact science. Sometimes not all trip goals can't be accommodated while doing that, and sometimes traffic interferes. Two examples:
1. When I went to the Providence City Meet, it would have been nice to avoid rush hour traffic, but such wasn't possible with trying to accomodate my clinching goals, not have to get up way too early that morning, having a hotel that wasn't too expensive or a dump, and getting to said hotel in time to watch the evening news and then have dinner. Something had to give, and in this case it was avoiding rush hour. Fortunately, Providence is not I-95 between DC and Richmond.
2. On the first day on my way to my cousin's wedding in Jacksonville, traffic was (mostly) the culprit. The plan was to leave at 8 sharp, quickly head down to Maryland, have a quick lunch at the service area, get to DC in the early afternoon before traffic got too bad (with some clinches while meandering around Baltimore/DC), then escape down to Richmond riding the wave ahead of the worst of the traffic, arriving at my hotel around 5. Now I'll admit, some of this is on me - I didn't actually leave until close to 8:30 because I hadn't yet had a handle on how long it actually takes me to be all packed and ready to go for a trip (in my defense, packing for a roadtrip, a wedding, and a normal gathering with the other side of the family all in one trip really threw me off with how much I actually needed to pack). Aside from some traffic entering Delaware, things were mostly fine for the first half of the trip, but then things got horrid. My first bad delays were a combination weather/construction on I-895, then a ton of rain delays on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, bad traffic just about everywhere in DC (seriously, it took my 30-60 minutes to get from the 11th Street Bridge to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge), such that I didn't even get to the Springfield interchange until 5... the height of rush hour (to be fair, I was also stupid and assumed that the $20 HOT lane charge was due to the merge at the end and thought I was beyond the worst of the traffic since the general purpose lanes were free-flow at the time; I was not, and I came to deeply regret getting off the HOT lanes within 5 minutes of doing so). I didn't end up getting to my hotel until 7:30. Fortunately I had already seen Richmond's local news on a previous trip, but in order to watch the series finale of Once Upon a Time (I have neither cable nor Hulu; I'm old school and use an antenna despite living in a ground floor apartment with LOTS of multipath interference), I had to cut out both dinner that night and my planned clinch of I-295 the next day (as part of I-295 would have been while getting dinner the night before, and because I now had to accommodate breakfast that day; at least Wawa has good breakfast sandwiches).
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 09:28:05 PM
My first bad delays were a combination weather/construction on I-895, then a ton of rain delays on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway
Another reason I prefer US-50 / US-301 / DE-1 over I-95. It completely bypasses Baltimore and takes you straight to DC. Unfortunately, no good road around the I-95 corridor south of DC exists, or I-495.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 09:52:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 09:28:05 PM
My first bad delays were a combination weather/construction on I-895, then a ton of rain delays on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway
Another reason I prefer US-50 / US-301 / DE-1 over I-95. It completely bypasses Baltimore and takes you straight to DC. Unfortunately, no good road around the I-95 corridor south of DC exists, or I-495.
I-95 was moving fine (though not free-flow) on the parts I was on prior to the springfield interchange (though I believe it was fully closed in downtown Baltimore due to an incident). Unfortunately, I had not yet clinched the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, which was stop and go much of the way, nor DC 295/I-295, I-895, or the DC portion of I-66, nor had I yet realized that I was already at the point of having to cut out clinches or give up getting to my hotel at a reasonable time.
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
nor had I yet realized that I was already at the point of having to cut out clinches or give up getting to my hotel at a reasonable time.
I had planned on clinching I-95 on the return trip between Wilmington and DC via Baltimore, though I ended up giving in to DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the return mostly because while I wanted to clinch it, I wanted a stress free, traffic free, ride back. Even though I-95 looked mostly green, I knew from being on the packed Turnpike before that, it was going to be packed. DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the other hand was very light traffic, and easily able to maintain 70-75 mph
(despite the ridiculously slow speed limit of 55 mph for a 40 mile rural stretch), plus it's always a bonus crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which conveniently happened to be at sunset providing a nice drive across.
Also, I-95 is $8 more expensive heading northbound, and $4 more expensive heading southbound. A nice savings, and for fun I chose to shunpike the state line toll recently added on US-301 which added only 5 minutes, and saved another $3. I can say from doing that, there a decent amount of traffic on the shunpiking route, more than I expected, including a few trucks illegally (which should be legal).
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 10:15:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
nor had I yet realized that I was already at the point of having to cut out clinches or give up getting to my hotel at a reasonable time.
I had planned on clinching I-95 on the return trip between Wilmington and DC via Baltimore, though I ended up giving in to DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the return mostly because while I wanted to clinch it, I wanted a stress free, traffic free, ride back. Even though I-95 looked mostly green, I knew from being on the packed Turnpike before that, it was going to be packed. DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the other hand was very light traffic, and easily able to maintain 70-75 mph (despite the ridiculously slow speed limit of 55 mph for a 40 mile rural stretch), plus it's always a bonus crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which conveniently happened to be at sunset providing a nice drive across.
Also, I-95 is $8 more expensive heading northbound, and $4 more expensive heading southbound. A nice savings, and for fun I chose to shunpike the state line toll recently added on US-301 which added only 5 minutes, and saved another $3. I can say from doing that, there a decent amount of traffic on the shunpiking route, more than I expected, including a few trucks illegally (which should be legal).
Is US301 better to use than I-95?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 01:02:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 10:15:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
nor had I yet realized that I was already at the point of having to cut out clinches or give up getting to my hotel at a reasonable time.
I had planned on clinching I-95 on the return trip between Wilmington and DC via Baltimore, though I ended up giving in to DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the return mostly because while I wanted to clinch it, I wanted a stress free, traffic free, ride back. Even though I-95 looked mostly green, I knew from being on the packed Turnpike before that, it was going to be packed. DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the other hand was very light traffic, and easily able to maintain 70-75 mph (despite the ridiculously slow speed limit of 55 mph for a 40 mile rural stretch), plus it's always a bonus crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which conveniently happened to be at sunset providing a nice drive across.
Also, I-95 is $8 more expensive heading northbound, and $4 more expensive heading southbound. A nice savings, and for fun I chose to shunpike the state line toll recently added on US-301 which added only 5 minutes, and saved another $3. I can say from doing that, there a decent amount of traffic on the shunpiking route, more than I expected, including a few trucks illegally (which should be legal).
Is US301 better to use than I-95?
If there's not heavy congestion (usually on peak weekends) near the Bay Bridge, then IMO yes it is.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 01:02:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 10:15:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
nor had I yet realized that I was already at the point of having to cut out clinches or give up getting to my hotel at a reasonable time.
I had planned on clinching I-95 on the return trip between Wilmington and DC via Baltimore, though I ended up giving in to DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the return mostly because while I wanted to clinch it, I wanted a stress free, traffic free, ride back. Even though I-95 looked mostly green, I knew from being on the packed Turnpike before that, it was going to be packed. DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the other hand was very light traffic, and easily able to maintain 70-75 mph (despite the ridiculously slow speed limit of 55 mph for a 40 mile rural stretch), plus it's always a bonus crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which conveniently happened to be at sunset providing a nice drive across.
Also, I-95 is $8 more expensive heading northbound, and $4 more expensive heading southbound. A nice savings, and for fun I chose to shunpike the state line toll recently added on US-301 which added only 5 minutes, and saved another $3. I can say from doing that, there a decent amount of traffic on the shunpiking route, more than I expected, including a few trucks illegally (which should be legal).
Is US301 better to use than I-95?
Define better. From where, to where? What day and time? Coming north on a Sunday evening, 301 is generally quite a bit better than 95. On a weekend morning, 95 is likely going to be better. On a Friday afternoon, don't head north on 301.
Quote from: Alps on July 27, 2019, 01:12:56 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 01:02:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 10:15:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
nor had I yet realized that I was already at the point of having to cut out clinches or give up getting to my hotel at a reasonable time.
I had planned on clinching I-95 on the return trip between Wilmington and DC via Baltimore, though I ended up giving in to DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the return mostly because while I wanted to clinch it, I wanted a stress free, traffic free, ride back. Even though I-95 looked mostly green, I knew from being on the packed Turnpike before that, it was going to be packed. DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the other hand was very light traffic, and easily able to maintain 70-75 mph (despite the ridiculously slow speed limit of 55 mph for a 40 mile rural stretch), plus it's always a bonus crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which conveniently happened to be at sunset providing a nice drive across.
Also, I-95 is $8 more expensive heading northbound, and $4 more expensive heading southbound. A nice savings, and for fun I chose to shunpike the state line toll recently added on US-301 which added only 5 minutes, and saved another $3. I can say from doing that, there a decent amount of traffic on the shunpiking route, more than I expected, including a few trucks illegally (which should be legal).
Is US301 better to use than I-95?
Define better. From where, to where? What day and time? Coming north on a Sunday evening, 301 is generally quite a bit better than 95. On a weekend morning, 95 is likely going to be better. On a Friday afternoon, don't head north on 301.
I think he's referring to between MD I-295 and DE I-295.
Either I-95 or US-50 / US-301 / DE-1.
My preference is the latter when congestion is not present at the Bay Bridge.
I had no problems taking US-50 / US-301 / DE-1 on a Sunday afternoon northbound and Saturday evening southbound.
Quote from: Alps on July 27, 2019, 01:12:56 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 01:02:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 10:15:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
nor had I yet realized that I was already at the point of having to cut out clinches or give up getting to my hotel at a reasonable time.
I had planned on clinching I-95 on the return trip between Wilmington and DC via Baltimore, though I ended up giving in to DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the return mostly because while I wanted to clinch it, I wanted a stress free, traffic free, ride back. Even though I-95 looked mostly green, I knew from being on the packed Turnpike before that, it was going to be packed. DE-1 / US-301 / US-50 on the other hand was very light traffic, and easily able to maintain 70-75 mph (despite the ridiculously slow speed limit of 55 mph for a 40 mile rural stretch), plus it's always a bonus crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which conveniently happened to be at sunset providing a nice drive across.
Also, I-95 is $8 more expensive heading northbound, and $4 more expensive heading southbound. A nice savings, and for fun I chose to shunpike the state line toll recently added on US-301 which added only 5 minutes, and saved another $3. I can say from doing that, there a decent amount of traffic on the shunpiking route, more than I expected, including a few trucks illegally (which should be legal).
Is US301 better to use than I-95?
Define better. From where, to where? What day and time? Coming north on a Sunday evening, 301 is generally quite a bit better than 95. On a weekend morning, 95 is likely going to be better. On a Friday afternoon, don't head north on 301.
in Northern Virginia and at 6pm! Lol i was referring to that. Close to the Springfield interchange
HOT lane tolls on my trip today to the MD Eastern Shore, full length both times.
Bypassed significant congestion spots on both trips.
95 NB Express Lanes: $9.30 - entered 9:51 am
95 SB Express Lanes: $8.20 - entered 9:13 pm
WTOP reports something that seems like it would have been expected (as to the result, that is): VDOT has decreased tolls a bit on I-66 and average speeds have also decreased.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/08/i-66-speeds-drop-as-virginia-lowers-tolls/
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2019, 06:54:18 AM
WTOP reports something that seems like it would have been expected (as to the result, that is): VDOT has decreased tolls a bit on I-66 and average speeds have also decreased.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/08/i-66-speeds-drop-as-virginia-lowers-tolls/
When you look at the bigger picture instead of just narrowing in on the I-66 corridor, it's had an overall benefit for traffic flow on other roads. I'm supportive of the decrease, it's more affordable and allows more people to use it, even with slightly slower speeds overall.
VDOT should consider widening I-66 to 6 lanes which would allow for a lower toll for all and keep traffic flowing in the 45-55 mph range. But likely RE/T groups and NIMBY would lose it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 08, 2019, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2019, 06:54:18 AM
WTOP reports something that seems like it would have been expected (as to the result, that is): VDOT has decreased tolls a bit on I-66 and average speeds have also decreased.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/08/i-66-speeds-drop-as-virginia-lowers-tolls/
When you look at the bigger picture instead of just narrowing in on the I-66 corridor, it's had an overall benefit for traffic flow on other roads. I'm supportive of the decrease, it's more affordable and allows more people to use it, even with slightly slower speeds overall.
VDOT should consider widening I-66 to 6 lanes which would allow for a lower toll for all and keep traffic flowing in the 45-55 mph range. But likely RE/T groups and NIMBY would lose it.
I think VDOT has done a good job of widening roadways when possible...after all, look at 95 & 495. I-66 has had a long history though of why widening is nearly impossible...and why HOV and now HOT lanes have been implemented in the first place. And ultimately, the issue will be what to do with the traffic at the end of I-66. You can widen the road to 20 lanes if you want, but if you have the same restrictive portal at the end, all it's going to do is bring up discussions of why zipper merging is best and everyone else is wrong. :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2019, 12:28:51 PM
I think VDOT has done a good job of widening roadways when possible
I'll believe it when I-95 is 8 general purposes lanes between Woodbridge and I-295, I-64 is 6 general purpose lanes between Williamsburg and I-295, and I-81 is 6 general purpose lanes throughout the state. All of those are possible, but they haven't done it. I understand the restrictions with money, but they're behind 400+ miles for widening, so I wouldn't say they've done a "good job" . Maybe north of Woodbridge, but south of Woodbridge they're lacking.
Widening I-66 east of Spout Run Parkway would pose a lot of difficulties, setting aside the issue of the Roosevelt Bridge constraining capacity.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 08, 2019, 01:16:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2019, 12:28:51 PM
I think VDOT has done a good job of widening roadways when possible
I’ll believe it when I-95 is 8 general purposes lanes between Woodbridge and I-295, I-64 is 6 general purpose lanes between Williamsburg and I-295, and I-81 is 6 general purpose lanes throughout the state. All of those are possible, but they haven’t done it. I understand the restrictions with money, but they’re behind 400+ miles for widening, so I wouldn’t say they’ve done a “good job”. Maybe north of Woodbridge, but south of Woodbridge they’re lacking.
Not only with money, but you're also focusing on interstates. There are numerous local issues to deal with as well. They could switch gears and widen the interstates, but then you'll be complaining the traffic on the local roads need improving as well.
Transportation departments understand that congestion will happen. But there's always going to be give and take, and while you may want certain highways widened, there are numerous other people that fight those widenings tooth and nail. Not only NIMBYs, but others as well.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2019, 01:18:27 PM
Widening I-66 east of Spout Run Parkway would pose a lot of difficulties, setting aside the issue of the Roosevelt Bridge constraining capacity.
Though by the time that I-66 gets to the Teddy Roosevelt Bridge, a lot of eastbound traffic has exited (though some enters from Rosslyn and from U.S. 50/Arlington Boulevard. The maximum load point for I-66 (in both directions) remains between Sycamore Street and Fairfax Drive. This is the case eastbound in AM and westbound in PM. This is also why tolls in the AM sometimes can famously spike at north of $40.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 08, 2019, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2019, 06:54:18 AM
WTOP reports something that seems like it would have been expected (as to the result, that is): VDOT has decreased tolls a bit on I-66 and average speeds have also decreased.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/08/i-66-speeds-drop-as-virginia-lowers-tolls/
When you look at the bigger picture instead of just narrowing in on the I-66 corridor, it's had an overall benefit for traffic flow on other roads. I'm supportive of the decrease, it's more affordable and allows more people to use it, even with slightly slower speeds overall.
VDOT should consider widening I-66 to 6 lanes which would allow for a lower toll for all and keep traffic flowing in the 45-55 mph range. But likely RE/T groups and NIMBY would lose it.
I am glad that they lowered the target speed (and hence the tolls) to 45 MPH. Realistically, I-66 would be faster than surface streets so long as the average speed on I-66 is at least 35 MPH. You want to relieve the traffic on the surface streets, as much as possible. A 55 MPH target was overkill, and the price was simply too high!
THe goal for HOT lanes should be: 1) provide HOVs with a decent experience, but not free flow during rush; 2) allow SOVs to join in for a price, so long as it doesn't degrade the experience for HOVs; 3) Provide balance in the street and highway network so that no surface road gets overburdened. I feel that the old system was not balanced and it favored 1 & 2 at the expense of 3. A 45 MPH goal is better. I-66, for those who qualify, will still be the fastest way inbound from that direction, but the pricing will now be feasible for more people. This, in turn, will unburden the local streets.
45 MPH is not free flow, but it is still quite fast for the inner suburbs at rush hour.
45 would probably be a better speed than if 66 & 266 were built as originally planned.
Quote1) provide HOVs with a decent experience, but not free flow during rush; 2) allow SOVs to join in for a price, so long as it doesn't degrade the experience for HOVs;
These clash.
Either you keep traffic moving for all, or you degrade the HOV experience. If the HOV drivers are already experiencing congestion then adding SOV vehicles will increase the congestion. If HOV traffic is moving already, you can only allow so many SOV drivers on before the lanes start to congest.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 11, 2019, 06:50:04 PM
Quote1) provide HOVs with a decent experience, but not free flow during rush; 2) allow SOVs to join in for a price, so long as it doesn't degrade the experience for HOVs;
These clash.
Either you keep traffic moving for all, or you degrade the HOV experience. If the HOV drivers are already experiencing congestion then adding SOV vehicles will increase the congestion. If HOV traffic is moving already, you can only allow so many SOV drivers on before the lanes start to congest.
It seems to me that HOV's already drive slower than the average person, so they inherently have a degraded experience :-D
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 08, 2019, 01:16:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2019, 12:28:51 PM
I think VDOT has done a good job of widening roadways when possible
I'll believe it when I-95 is 8 general purposes lanes between Woodbridge and I-295, I-64 is 6 general purpose lanes between Williamsburg and I-295, and I-81 is 6 general purpose lanes throughout the state. All of those are possible, but they haven't done it. I understand the restrictions with money, but they're behind 400+ miles for widening, so I wouldn't say they've done a "good job" . Maybe north of Woodbridge, but south of Woodbridge they're lacking.
VDOT has already widened over 300 miles of freeways to 6 or more lanes, and this was one of the first states to have major freeway widening projects.
I can't think of any state that comes anywhere near 700 miles other than Florida (and few have as much as 300 miles), with perhaps 600 miles, and that is in a state that has 3 times the population of Virginia.
Besides, I will be saying a lot more going forward about the unbuilt Washington Eastern Bypass, which I posted about several days ago in the I-97 thread. Now that Maryland has decided on a US-301 location and is about to begin construction of a new 4-lane Potomac River Bridge, that will be a critical link in any future eastern bypass, and now Maryland needs to get serious about planning it, they are on the critical path, and that would be between I-95 at Carmel Church and I-97 at Dorrs Corner, paralleling VA-207, US-301 and MD-3, built to full freeway standards.
It is ridiculous that I-95 has to carry all the weight south of I-495, and is expected by some to be expanded because Maryland has never gotten serious about an outer bypass of Washington. With sufficient relief much of I-95 may work fine with 6 lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on August 13, 2019, 10:26:33 PM
With sufficient relief much of I-95 may work fine with 6 lanes.
I-95 between I-295 and Woodbridge would still need 8-lanes, though an outer bypass would certainly be welcomed.
The rural stretches of I-95 south of Fredericksburg that would not be bypassed currently have recurring congestion issues, especially during peak travel times. Those would continue even with an outer bypass.
Also, a study would need to be conducted to see how much of the traffic is actually thru traffic and how much would be diverted. It could only be something 30,000 AADT, and that's great to take that load of I-95 and get long-distance traffic on its way, but I-95 would still need 8-lanes nonetheless. A significant amount of the traffic on I-95 is destined to the Northern Virginia / Southern Maryland area and would not be diverted by the outer bypass.
An example of such is SH-130, an 85-mile toll bypass around Austin, Texas. It's a nice road that allows thru traffic to bypass the horrible mess that I-35 is, and has diverted some traffic, but I-35 still remains a mess and still needs massive expansions, even w/ the bypass in place.
The southern part of the bypass only carries as little as 5,000 AADT, while I-35 carries well over 100,000 AADT.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2019, 12:16:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 13, 2019, 10:26:33 PM
With sufficient relief much of I-95 may work fine with 6 lanes.
I-95 between I-295 and Woodbridge would still need 8-lanes, though an outer bypass would certainly be welcomed.
The rural stretches of I-95 south of Fredericksburg that would not be bypassed currently have recurring congestion issues, especially during peak travel times. Those would continue even with an outer bypass.
That would be south of Carmel Church to I-295, the only section that would be on single routing.
The fact is, by having another north-south freeway between there and Baltimore, the pressures would be considerably lessened, providing parallel freeway capacity to I-95, relief for I-95, and an alternate route for traffic that wants to bypass Washington.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2019, 12:16:04 AM
Also, a study would need to be conducted to see how much of the traffic is actually thru traffic and how much would be diverted. It could only be something 30,000 AADT
Knock 30,000 off of 100,000 and that is 70,000, workable with 6 lanes.
Whatever pressures there were for future widening would be greatly lessened.
If the eastern bypass had been completed, then the two states could start working on the western bypass, between I-95 at Fredericksburg and I-70 at Mount Airy.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2019, 12:16:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 13, 2019, 10:26:33 PM
With sufficient relief much of I-95 may work fine with 6 lanes.
I-95 between I-295 and Woodbridge would still need 8-lanes, though an outer bypass would certainly be welcomed.
Either do that or make a new eastern DC bypass which i think would be very expensive. That part would need 8 lanes and maybe 2 or 4 express lanes in each direction.
Just rode the WMATA shuttle to the Pentagon via the general-purpose lanes (HOV was closed to reverse the direction). Lots of old signs have been removed this week. Most notable to me was what I'm pretty sure was the last of the old white-on-black signs, an "ALL TRAFFIC" pull-through for southbound traffic at Turkeycock. That sign had to come down because it was for two lanes where there will now be three. The old-style rectangular red all-text "DO NOT ENTER" sign next to it is gone as well. Two of that style remain locally, though they're both likely doomed–they're at the left-side HOV ramps on I-66 at Monument Drive and Stringfellow Road, and they'll likely come down during the I-66 HO/T project.
The pull-through BGS near the Pentagon that used a control "city" of "14th Street Br" is gone as well. Its replacement says simply "Washington." The old sign was nearing the end of its lifespan even without the HO/T project because the green was peeling off.
Still a decent amount of work to be done on the road around Turkeycock and between roughly King Street and the overpass that leads to Ridge Road, but they've made a lot of progress even in just the past two weeks.
VDOT has a Web site online that describes the extension of the 495 Express Lanes up to the American Legion Bridge that I recently became aware of:
https://www.495northernextension.org/ (https://www.495northernextension.org/)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2019, 01:16:04 PM
VDOT has a Web site online that describes the extension of the 495 Express Lanes up to the American Legion Bridge that I recently became aware of:
https://www.495northernextension.org/ (https://www.495northernextension.org/)
It would be great if they could move forward with the study of the "gap project", the 1.7 miles of I-495 that is still 4 lanes each way, between the Springfield Interchange Project eastern limits and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project western limits. Those projects included a managed lane each way except for a very short section near US-1.
I would like to see a 5 lane added each way so that the managed lanes could be opened all the way on the southern section of the Beltway to near Allentown Road in Maryland.
I noticed that the future information boards (VMS style) for the HOT lanes now have a message mentioning that the extended HOT lanes will kick in in "November".
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 30, 2019, 10:03:14 PM
I noticed that the future information boards (VMS style) for the HOT lanes now have a message mentioning that the extended HOT lanes will kick in in "November".
Assuming this is I-395. Has the third lane opened yet?
Quote from: Beltway on September 30, 2019, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 30, 2019, 10:03:14 PM
I noticed that the future information boards (VMS style) for the HOT lanes now have a message mentioning that the extended HOT lanes will kick in in "November".
Assuming this is I-395. Has the third lane opened yet?
Opened? No. But they are effectively complete - there are simply cones blocking off the third lane from around Turkeycock to at least Shirlington. Most of the work is presently on sound walls abutting 395, which is ancillary to the overall project. The remaining road work of note on the HOT carriageway is around the Pentagon.
Here's the new arrangement (assuming an inbound heading):
[concrete barrier][lane 1][lane 2][lane 3][shoulder][concrete barrier]
Lane 1 is the new lane, and occupies what used to be the western shoulder - it currently is blocked by cones.
The east-side shoulder remains as-is. So the shoulder will be to the right during inbound hours, and to the left during outbound hours.
The concrete barriers have replaced the old lattice metal barriers. The roadway on the central carriageway is is notably better condition than the general purpose lanes (not too surprising). The lights for the HOT carriageway are LED, while the GP lanes remain old sodium vapor lamps.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 30, 2019, 10:35:32 PM
Lane 1 is the new lane, and occupies what used to be the western shoulder - it currently is blocked by cones.
The east-side shoulder remains as-is. So the shoulder will be to the right during inbound hours, and to the left during outbound hours.
So essentially - they simply converted one of the shoulders into a travel lane, and then reduced the size of the other shoulder to accommodate all the lanes and/or reduced the lane sizes to 11 ft?
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 30, 2019, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 30, 2019, 10:35:32 PM
Lane 1 is the new lane, and occupies what used to be the western shoulder - it currently is blocked by cones.
The east-side shoulder remains as-is. So the shoulder will be to the right during inbound hours, and to the left during outbound hours.
So essentially - they simply converted one of the shoulders into a travel lane, and then reduced the size of the other shoulder to accommodate all the lanes and/or reduced the lane sizes to 11 ft?
Precisely. The old configuration was:
[lattice railing][shoulder][lane 2][lane 3][shoulder][lattice railing].
("Lane 1" only exists now thanks to the reconfiguration of the lanes, so I marked the two old lanes as 2 and 3 for purposes of consistency).
Dear Slugs/Drivers:
There are a lot of changes to the 395 Express Lanes, so I wanted to share with you the latest information.
395 Express Lanes: Slugs, and drivers, are free to DC
The 395 Express Lanes will open this November and the project team has announced a perk to keep slugging strong on I-395.
When the 395 Express Lanes open, drivers who carpool up to Eads Street and exit the Lanes to drop off sluggers will be able to get back on the Lanes for free — but other drivers who first get on the Lanes here will pay a toll. (Of course, if you carpool the entire trip into DC, it's free as well.)
That's right, drivers who take sluggers to Eads Street get to go free for the rest of the trip.
How will it work?
-- Carpool up the northbound 395 Express Lanes with your Flex in HOV mode, just like normal.
-- Get off at Eads Street to drop off slugs at the Pentagon or Pentagon City. (Or keep carpooling into DC.)
-- Switch your Flex to "HOV off" -- since you don't have 3 people in the car anymore -- before you get back on the northbound Lanes from Eads Street. That way you don't risk getting pulled over by Virginia State Police troopers who are looking for real cheaters.
-- Even though your Flex will be set to "HOV off," the operators will know you carpooled to Eads Street. You won't be charged to finish your trip to the city.
http://www.slug-lines.com/newsletter/newsletter36.html
I guess this is to cover "Person A", who picks up sluggers down south who themselves want to be dropped off at the Pentagon, whereas Person A doesn't have a need to park at the Pentagon. Person A can then continue to DC free of charge (I guess there's a charge between Eads and the 14th Street bridge?)
This might be one of the most niche/localized aspects of the Interstate Highway System I can think of. While out-of-towners could conceivably figure out the reversible HOT lane system on 395, this is locals only.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 02, 2019, 09:41:27 AM
I guess this is to cover "Person A", who picks up sluggers down south who themselves want to be dropped off at the Pentagon, whereas Person A doesn't have a need to park at the Pentagon. Person A can then continue to DC free of charge (I guess there's a charge between Eads and the 14th Street bridge?)
For HOT-3 and less than 3 occupants apparently yes, excepting the vehicles who get off and on at Eads Street.
What about SB, can they benefit from this also? Use the express lanes in D.C. with less than 3 persons, get off at the Pentagon, pick up slugs and get back on? Slug-Lines.com needs to research that.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 02, 2019, 09:41:27 AM
This might be one of the most niche/localized aspects of the Interstate Highway System I can think of. While out-of-towners could conceivably figure out the reversible HOT lane system on 395, this is locals only.
Locals being someone as far as the Fredericksburg area who commute into D.C.
I use the I-495 HOT lanes about 3 times per year and the I-95 HOT lanes 8 or 10 times per year, and enjoy the benefit as I have posted before.
My trips don't include I-395 so other than one time to take a look at it I won't need to use them.
I have made the rare trip thru D.C. in lieu of taking the Beltway around the east side, but other than with some major traffic incident it is not a competitive alternative. The new 11th Street Bridge and DC-295 interchange completion does provide a continuous freeway route thru the city, but I don't know how much if any traffic it diverts from the Beltway.
Quote
What about SB, can they benefit from this also? Use the express lanes in D.C. with less than 3 persons, get off at the Pentagon, pick up slugs and get back on? Slug-Lines.com needs to research that.
Per this page (https://www.expresslanes.com/395#tabdriving-near-the-pentagon) (scroll way down and select driving near pentagon) there is no toll barrier on the SB ramp to Eads. Unless they place a toll reader on the express lane itself before that ramp the trip would be free anyway?
Pdf pg 15 has a diagram (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/BoardsforWeb.pdf) that suggests there is no SB toll gantry before Eads.
Quote from: Beltway on October 02, 2019, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 02, 2019, 09:41:27 AM
I guess this is to cover "Person A", who picks up sluggers down south who themselves want to be dropped off at the Pentagon, whereas Person A doesn't have a need to park at the Pentagon. Person A can then continue to DC free of charge (I guess there's a charge between Eads and the 14th Street bridge?)
For HOT-3 and less than 3 occupants apparently yes, excepting the vehicles who get off and on at Eads Street.
What about SB, can they benefit from this also? Use the express lanes in D.C. with less than 3 persons, get off at the Pentagon, pick up slugs and get back on? Slug-Lines.com needs to research that.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 02, 2019, 09:41:27 AM
This might be one of the most niche/localized aspects of the Interstate Highway System I can think of. While out-of-towners could conceivably figure out the reversible HOT lane system on 395, this is locals only.
Locals being someone as far as the Fredericksburg area who commute into D.C.
I use the I-495 HOT lanes about 3 times per year and the I-95 HOT lanes 8 or 10 times per year, and enjoy the benefit as I have posted before.
My trips don't include I-395 so other than one time to take a look at it I won't need to use them.
I have made the rare trip thru D.C. in lieu of taking the Beltway around the east side, but other than with some major traffic incident it is not a competitive alternative. The new 11th Street Bridge and DC-295 interchange completion does provide a continuous freeway route thru the city, but I don't know how much if any traffic it diverts from the Beltway.
Coming from the South Arlington/West Alexandria area, 11th Street bridge has been a great connector to the I-95/US-1/B-W Parkway corridor. Previous you either had to take some local road detours, or a longer freeway detour. Even with the issues of I-295, it's now a more robust network for those coming from the inner suburbs.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 02, 2019, 10:51:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 02, 2019, 10:04:49 AM
I have made the rare trip thru D.C. in lieu of taking the Beltway around the east side, but other than with some major traffic incident it is not a competitive alternative. The new 11th Street Bridge and DC-295 interchange completion does provide a continuous freeway route thru the city, but I don't know how much if any traffic it diverts from the Beltway.
Coming from the South Arlington/West Alexandria area, 11th Street bridge has been a great connector to the I-95/US-1/B-W Parkway corridor. Previous you either had to take some local road detours, or a longer freeway detour. Even with the issues of I-295, it's now a more robust network for those coming from the inner suburbs.
Definitely agree that it has improved connections in the inner suburbs, connecting I-395 and I-66 to the Anacostia Freeway.
But not really designed to be an I-95 bypass.
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 02, 2019, 10:33:30 AM
Quote
What about SB, can they benefit from this also? Use the express lanes in D.C. with less than 3 persons, get off at the Pentagon, pick up slugs and get back on? Slug-Lines.com needs to research that.
Per this page (https://www.expresslanes.com/395#tabdriving-near-the-pentagon) (scroll way down and select driving near pentagon) there is no toll barrier on the SB ramp to Eads. Unless they place a toll reader on the express lane itself before that ramp the trip would be free anyway?
Pdf pg 15 has a diagram (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/BoardsforWeb.pdf) that suggests there is no SB toll gantry before Eads.
I haven't driven into the District in a while, but I plan to do so on Columbus Day due to the combination of not having the day off, light traffic and no HOV restrictions because the feds will have off, and a Caps game that night. I'll try to keep my eyes open to see what gantries are in that area.
I'll try to take a look at the Eads St area when I'm up that way today.
Separately, while out on foot yesterday, I noticed that there is a price information board at the intersection of Martha Custis Dr. and Gunston Dr. (in the Parkfairfax neigborhood). This is the first time I can recall a HOT toll information board being placed in a residential area*, rather than a median or other road-related ROW.
I've set Google Street View to look at the approximate position of the new board (obviously doesn't show in the current GSV image). It's on the patch of grass with the dirt path running through it. Actually you might be able to see the concrete base in this current image: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.840362,-77.0834056,3a,75y,313.82h,87.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2Z2WZPeCf0vt7_uEAw1oIA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D2Z2WZPeCf0vt7_uEAw1oIA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D217.29196%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
*This, BTW, is why I roll my eye and don't pay too much attention to the discussions on widening highways (395, 66, etc) inside the Beltway. There's effectively zero buffer land or excess ROW anywhere along these corridors. Unless you're going to eminent domain dozens of houses and apartments, and hundreds (thousands?) of residents, it's all moot.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 04, 2019, 10:28:30 AM
....
Separately, while out on foot yesterday, I noticed that there is a price information board at the intersection of Martha Custis Dr. and Gunston Dr. (in the Parkfairfax neigborhood). This is the first time I can recall a HOT toll information board being placed in a residential area*, rather than a median or other road-related ROW.
....
It makes good sense to put the sign there because it allows people to see the information before entering Shirlington Circle. The circle is busy and usually requires you devote your full attention to the road (and other traffic) such that it wouldn't necessarily be easy to see pricing information once you're on the circle–plus it's such a short distance to the HOV ramp that putting the sign there wouldn't give you much time to see it and decide whether to pay.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 04, 2019, 01:18:26 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 04, 2019, 10:28:30 AM
....
Separately, while out on foot yesterday, I noticed that there is a price information board at the intersection of Martha Custis Dr. and Gunston Dr. (in the Parkfairfax neigborhood). This is the first time I can recall a HOT toll information board being placed in a residential area*, rather than a median or other road-related ROW.
....
It makes good sense to put the sign there because it allows people to see the information before entering Shirlington Circle. The circle is busy and usually requires you devote your full attention to the road (and other traffic) such that it wouldn't necessarily be easy to see pricing information once you're on the circle–plus it's such a short distance to the HOV ramp that putting the sign there wouldn't give you much time to see it and decide whether to pay.
Just make a circuit around the circle and you buy yourself more time :sombrero:
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 04, 2019, 02:28:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 04, 2019, 01:18:26 PM
It makes good sense to put the sign there because it allows people to see the information before entering Shirlington Circle. The circle is busy and usually requires you devote your full attention to the road (and other traffic) such that it wouldn't necessarily be easy to see pricing information once you're on the circle–plus it's such a short distance to the HOV ramp that putting the sign there wouldn't give you much time to see it and decide whether to pay.
Just make a circuit around the circle and you buy yourself more time :sombrero:
That loop is a lot longer than the original Shirlington Circle! :-)
And I did drive it.
I've had out-of-town company this weekend from middle America (i.e. regular interstate arrangements), and I was attempting to explain the local HO/T setup to them, and I realized in explaining it to them that it's really, really confusing if you're not a local. After all, 395, 66, and 495 all have different HO/T layouts and rules (with respect to carriageways and hours).
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2019, 09:39:36 AM
I've had out-of-town company this weekend from middle America (i.e. regular interstate arrangements), and I was attempting to explain the local HO/T setup to them, and I realized in explaining it to them that it's really, really confusing if you're not a local. After all, 395, 66, and 495 all have different HO/T layouts and rules (with respect to carriageways and hours).
Then not to mention the tolling aspect, out of state drivers, having to have a Flex for HOV, etc.
One thing I really liked about HOV is that it's universal and simple - if you're HOV, you can ride it. You don't need to worry about prices, special transponders, etc.
This is one of the reasons I don't use any HO/T facilities out of state - mostly because I can't without getting toll by plate. So far I've only used the I-95 / 495 lanes and 64. The toll lanes in North Carolina along I-77 and under construction I-485 is operated the same as in Virginia, and you can even use an E-ZPass Flex on it for HOV mode, and it will accept it.
Yet another reason we need a universal transponder and HOV reading system for the country instead of split up between regions. For instance, if I traveled I-77 in N.C., I could easily use it with HOV for free because it's exactly like VA's and I'm familiar with it. Now imagine toll lanes in Los Angeles for instance being the same system, and universally using them. I'd certainly use it in that case, especially if HOV, but not when I gotta worry about rental car fees, tolls, etc. This applies with any toll road as well.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2019, 09:39:36 AM
I've had out-of-town company this weekend from middle America (i.e. regular interstate arrangements), and I was attempting to explain the local HO/T setup to them, and I realized in explaining it to them that it's really, really confusing if you're not a local. After all, 395, 66, and 495 all have different HO/T layouts and rules (with respect to carriageways and hours).
I had an easy time of it when our relatives from Phoenix were here a few years back: "Don't go into the express lanes on the Beltway. You don't have an E-ZPass to pay the toll."
I had a harder time explaining the Dulles Access Road in a way they could visualize and resorted to using Street View to explain the configuration.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2019, 10:55:40 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2019, 09:39:36 AM
I've had out-of-town company this weekend from middle America (i.e. regular interstate arrangements), and I was attempting to explain the local HO/T setup to them, and I realized in explaining it to them that it's really, really confusing if you're not a local. After all, 395, 66, and 495 all have different HO/T layouts and rules (with respect to carriageways and hours).
I had an easy time of it when our relatives from Phoenix were here a few years back: "Don't go into the express lanes on the Beltway. You don't have an E-ZPass to pay the toll."
I had a harder time explaining the Dulles Access Road in a way they could visualize and resorted to using Street View to explain the configuration.
Point taken, but the Beltway is the easiest of the roads to explain. For instance, we explained I-66 in terms of "you can use I-66 anytime you want,
except for peak-direction rush hour" (we did have to further define peak-direction rush hour concepts). I think our visitors weren't quite getting that there are no separated lanes for HO/T and general purpose on I-66 (whereas I think most people would understand the idea of physically-separated carriageways, particularly in the manner of the Beltway).
In other words, some of the discussion on their end implied the question "where exactly are the express lanes in I-66?" not realizing that they were on them in the first place.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2019, 10:55:40 AM
I had an easy time of it when our relatives from Phoenix were here a few years back: "Don't go into the express lanes on the Beltway. You don't have an E-ZPass to pay the toll."
That's just the easy way out :D
But if you actually wanted to use them when out of town, it takes a few minutes to figure it out, and if you're not pre-planning and just happened to want to use them at the spur of the moment and are non-local, it's pretty much a no-go and the signage isn't that clear as much as they can try and make it.
You guys are thinking way too much into it. The area experiences thousands of out of area motorists every day. All they have to do is read the signs. Trying to describe it in more detail isn't needed and is mostly the source of the confusion.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2019, 11:17:34 AM
I think our visitors weren't quite getting that there are no separated lanes for HO/T and general purpose on I-66 (whereas I think most people would understand the idea of physically-separated carriageways, particularly in the manner of the Beltway)
As I'm not a local to the Northern Virginia area and my travels up there in the past have taken me near Woodbridge south of the Beltway, I had the same confusion when they were talking a few years ago about making I-66 a HO/T facility. It took me some time to realize there's no physical HO/T lanes, but rather the entire highway is a HO/T facility during peak hours.
I understand moreso the opposition to the hefty tolls on it, especially as it's not optional, it's all the lanes. And the argument that - it's no different when it was HOV except now more people can use it - is also false. They extended the hours, and now are going to increase the threshold to HOV 3+. So all HOV-2 traffic, and traffic that used it during the old free, now tolled hours, along with Airport Traffic gets stiffed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 13, 2019, 11:23:48 AM
You guys are thinking way too much into it. The area experiences thousands of out of area motorists every day. All they have to do is read the signs. Trying to describe it in more detail isn't needed and is mostly the source of the confusion.
Easy for solo drivers with a standard E-ZPass, but if you're HOV, it gets more confusing. Especially for families driving long-distance and passing thru the area, use of the HO/T lanes might be of interest especially if it's free, but most people don't own an E-ZPass Flex. The only states that utilize E-ZPass flex IIRC is Virginia and North Carolina.
And if you're out of state and don't own an E-ZPass (i.e. you're visiting somebody in the area, there for work or leisure from a non E-ZPass state), you're out of luck, whereas with the HOV lanes as long as you're HOV 3+ you're good.
IIRC, I think that some states have the lanes set up where HOV traffic enters a dedicated set of lanes with no toll gantry to bypass the toll collection area, similar to the traditional HOV where there's no gantry, and SOV traffic uses the toll lane to get the charge. That's the most ideal IMO rather than requiring some special pass.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 13, 2019, 11:27:38 AM
As I'm not a local to the Northern Virginia area and my travels up there in the past have taken me near Woodbridge south of the Beltway, I had the same confusion when they were talking a few years ago about making I-66 a HO/T facility. It took me some time to realize there's no physical HO/T lanes, but rather the entire highway is a HO/T facility during peak hours.
I understand moreso the opposition to the hefty tolls on it, especially as it's not optional, it's all the lanes. And the argument that - it's no different when it was HOV except now more people can use it - is also false. They extended the hours, and now are going to increase the threshold to HOV 3+. So all HOV-2 traffic, and traffic that used it during the old free, now tolled hours, along with Airport Traffic gets stiffed.
The hours extensions were pretty modest. As for HOV-3, that's been in the works longer than the HO/T scheme was, as is making HOV (now HO/T) bidirectional to address "reverse commute" congestion. But I was disappointed with the removal of the Dulles Airport exemption, if only that it would undermine efforts to shift air traffic to Dulles from the congested Reagan National airport.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 13, 2019, 11:27:38 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2019, 11:17:34 AM
I think our visitors weren't quite getting that there are no separated lanes for HO/T and general purpose on I-66 (whereas I think most people would understand the idea of physically-separated carriageways, particularly in the manner of the Beltway)
As I'm not a local to the Northern Virginia area and my travels up there in the past have taken me near Woodbridge south of the Beltway, I had the same confusion when they were talking a few years ago about making I-66 a HO/T facility. It took me some time to realize there's no physical HO/T lanes, but rather the entire highway is a HO/T facility during peak hours.
I understand moreso the opposition to the hefty tolls on it, especially as it's not optional, it's all the lanes. And the argument that - it's no different when it was HOV except now more people can use it - is also false. They extended the hours, and now are going to increase the threshold to HOV 3+. So all HOV-2 traffic, and traffic that used it during the old free, now tolled hours, along with Airport Traffic gets stiffed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 13, 2019, 11:23:48 AM
You guys are thinking way too much into it. The area experiences thousands of out of area motorists every day. All they have to do is read the signs. Trying to describe it in more detail isn't needed and is mostly the source of the confusion.
Easy for solo drivers with a standard E-ZPass, but if you're HOV, it gets more confusing. Especially for families driving long-distance and passing thru the area, use of the HO/T lanes might be of interest especially if it's free, but most people don't own an E-ZPass Flex. The only states that utilize E-ZPass flex IIRC is Virginia and North Carolina.
And if you're out of state and don't own an E-ZPass (i.e. you're visiting somebody in the area, there for work or leisure from a non E-ZPass state), you're out of luck, whereas with the HOV lanes as long as you're HOV 3+ you're good.
IIRC, I think that some states have the lanes set up where HOV traffic enters a dedicated set of lanes with no toll gantry to bypass the toll collection area, similar to the traditional HOV where there's no gantry, and SOV traffic uses the toll lane to get the charge. That's the most ideal IMO rather than requiring some special pass.
So either they pay or they use the free lanes. Again, nothing unusual, and of the complaints about the tolling, this one doesn't seem to measure up there as much of an issue. HOV lanes are really meant for commuters. Families can certainly use them if they qualify, but it's not like most families on vacation are really taking cars off the road by using the HOV lanes as kids wouldn't be driving separately anyway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 13, 2019, 12:35:40 PM
So either they pay or they use the free lanes. Again, nothing unusual, and of the complaints about the tolling, this one doesn't seem to measure up there as much of an issue. HOV lanes are really meant for commuters. Families can certainly use them if they qualify, but it's not like most families on vacation are really taking cars off the road by using the HOV lanes as kids wouldn't be driving separately anyway.
If you are from outside of the area and only pass thru there once or a few times per year, and don't understand the managed lanes in that local area, then like you say you can use the general purpose lanes, no big deal.
I think the signage for I-66 inside the Beltway is the clearest signage of any of Northern Virginia's HO/T lanes. I think the part-time nature of the operation there is probably part of the reason why, too. The aspect that's hard to explain concisely on any sign is the free ride for HOVs if you have an E-ZPass Flex. I don't think the way the signs are worded really conveys that part very clearly, but I don't know how I'd reword it. Maybe "HOV-[number] free if you use [E-ZPass Flex logo]."
I do think VDOT press releases when I-66 tolling began were poorly worded. They kept saying express lanes were "opening." That implied new lanes. Instead, they should have said HO/T "operations begin on [date]."
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 02, 2019, 05:58:57 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 02, 2019, 10:33:30 AM
Quote
What about SB, can they benefit from this also? Use the express lanes in D.C. with less than 3 persons, get off at the Pentagon, pick up slugs and get back on? Slug-Lines.com needs to research that.
Per this page (https://www.expresslanes.com/395#tabdriving-near-the-pentagon) (scroll way down and select driving near pentagon) there is no toll barrier on the SB ramp to Eads. Unless they place a toll reader on the express lane itself before that ramp the trip would be free anyway?
Pdf pg 15 has a diagram (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/BoardsforWeb.pdf) that suggests there is no SB toll gantry before Eads.
I haven't driven into the District in a while, but I plan to do so on Columbus Day due to the combination of not having the day off, light traffic and no HOV restrictions because the feds will have off, and a Caps game that night. I'll try to keep my eyes open to see what gantries are in that area.
Following up on this. I drove in this morning (nice fast trip–HOV lanes empty, mainline at a standstill due to a crash north of Glebe). There is an inbound gantry just before the 14th Street Bridge, roughly around where that old pedestrian tunnel passes under the highway. I did not see an outbound gantry in the same area. I noted a new small white sign right at the bridge's start that says "Express Restriction Ends."
If the HOV is open tonight after the Caps game, I'll go home that way and keep my eyes peeled for new things on the outbound road near the Pentagon.
The road is mostly in good shape and the third lane is largely complete and blocked off with barrels. Still a decent bit of work going on near the Pentagon, and some restriping is badly needed there because the lines on the overpasses don't match up with the lines on the pavement to either side of the overpasses. Still, it looks likely they'll have it all done by Thanksgiving.
I noted VMS messages about I-395 express lanes "opening" in November and requiring E-ZPass or E-ZPass Flex. As with I-66, I wish they'd word that differently. The lanes are already "open" except for the newly-built third lane. They're converting them to HO/T lanes rather than "opening" new express lanes.
You really think anyone up this way is going to be confused about the "opening" vs "converting" distinction
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 14, 2019, 10:38:46 AM
You really think anyone up this way is going to be confused about the "opening" vs "converting" distinction
Yeah, I do, based on a lot of the overall stupidity I've seen elsewhere. Back in 2012 when the signs for the Beltway HO/T lanes went up on I-66 approaching the Beltway, one lady complained to Dr. Gridlock that she shouldn't need an E-ZPass to drive on I-66. She apparently didn't know about the Beltway HO/T project (I found that hard to believe).
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 14, 2019, 10:57:28 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 14, 2019, 10:38:46 AM
You really think anyone up this way is going to be confused about the "opening" vs "converting" distinction
Yeah, I do, based on a lot of the overall stupidity I've seen elsewhere. Back in 2012 when the signs for the Beltway HO/T lanes went up on I-66 approaching the Beltway, one lady complained to Dr. Gridlock that she shouldn't need an E-ZPass to drive on I-66. She apparently didn't know about the Beltway HO/T project (I found that hard to believe).
For some people, there's not enough signage in the world that'll help them out.
Remember, were dealing with people that can operate their smart phone's hundreds of features all by themselves, but yet will demand 3 days of training for a simple computer program at work.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 14, 2019, 10:38:46 AM
You really think anyone up this way is going to be confused about the "opening" vs "converting" distinction
Not being local or that familiar area to the area, I initially perceived I-66's lanes as being a separated facility, not an all HO/T highway.
Following on my comment from this morning, the HOV lanes were closed tonight at 8:00 when we were on our way home, so I wasn't able to look for any outbound toll gantries prior to Eads Street.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 14, 2019, 10:57:28 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 14, 2019, 10:38:46 AM
You really think anyone up this way is going to be confused about the "opening" vs "converting" distinction
Yeah, I do, based on a lot of the overall stupidity I've seen elsewhere. Back in 2012 when the signs for the Beltway HO/T lanes went up on I-66 approaching the Beltway, one lady complained to Dr. Gridlock that she shouldn't need an E-ZPass to drive on I-66. She apparently didn't know about the Beltway HO/T project (I found that hard to believe).
I do not.
MD-200 (ICC) has been open for quite a few years now, but just recently I was explaining to someone how E-ZPass works, but it is legal to drive on this road (but not the Transurban toll lanes in Virginia) without E-ZPass, but then the MDTA toll charges are significantly higher.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 15, 2019, 06:51:54 PM
(but not the Transurban toll lanes in Virginia)
Technically, you can, it's just a higher fee.
Those are technically violation notices, not a bill by mail toll.
Quote from: vdeane on October 16, 2019, 09:06:51 PM
Those are technically violation notices, not a bill by mail toll.
And the surcharge on the Transurban-managed lanes and roads in northern Virginia is higher than the bill-by-plate setup on MD 200. The surcharge starts at $12.50 (https://www.expresslanes.com/pay) if you get an invoice in the mail, though you can avoid that fee by paying the missed toll online plus a $1.50 fee within 5 days after the missed toll.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 14, 2019, 09:21:11 PM
Following on my comment from this morning, the HOV lanes were closed tonight at 8:00 when we were on our way home, so I wasn't able to look for any outbound toll gantries prior to Eads Street.
Drove in at midday today. There is no outbound toll gantry prior to Eads Street. The reversible carriageway is in about the best condition I've ever seen it, nice new pavement from Turkeycock up to where the current reversible configuration ends. Still a lot of work near the Pentagon, and the inbound approach to the 14th Street Bridge has been milled. (I entered there due to what time it was. In the future, this use of the "HOV bridge" will incur a toll. I wonder what effect that'll have on traffic in the northbound "free" lanes.)
I noted shortly before Edsall VDOT put up one of those signs they love so much explaining what "HOV" means (seems like a waste–it's a new sign and it'll likely come down when HO/T operations begin, seeing as how the other HO/T lanes don't have those signs). But it's oddly worded. It complies with the silly new "HOV-3
+" terminology, but then it defines it as "High Occupancy Vehicle
3+ or more persons per vehicle" (boldface added). The "+" is unneeded, or alternatively the words "or more" are unneeded. I guess this is a "Department of Redundancy Department" sign.
Edited on Saturday afternoon to add: Coming back from the Caps game last night, I was surprised to find the HOV lanes were open. Main things of interest going southbound were:
(1) The new BGSs that replaced the old signs that simply said "Pentagon"–the new ones list Eads Street on the top line and Pentagon beneath that.
(2) New gates are in place on the median wall at the outbound Eads Street exit. These are needed because the current southbound-facing ramp at that interchange will now be reversible. The gates will swing out from the median barrier, unlike some of the others along the reversible facility where they raise and lower them.
(3) Once you get past the overpass carrying the ramp to Ridge Road, the third lane appears ready for use, but it's blocked off with barrels (some of which are protruding into the lane of traffic). I assume the third lane won't be used until the HO/T conversion takes place. There's probably no real reason why it couldn't be used now.
(4) A couple of signs still need to be altered as you approach Turkeycock–the "Last Exit Before Toll" footer needs to be removed or covered with greenout. They also need to remove some speed limit signs, but for obvious reasons that'll wait until the last minute.
My wife even noted how much better the road is since the work is winding down.
Well it's officially the window of time for the section of the 395 HOT lanes to open. There's definitely still work to be done, and I wonder if there will be some non-essential work done after the opening.
But most of the information (i.e. till) signs are in place, under shrouds. This includes not only 395 itself, but in neighborhoods in the approaches (Parkfairfax at the Shirlington rotary and Pentagon City on Army-Navy drive specifically.
Tolling begins this coming Sunday, Nov. 10th.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/11/04/tolling-new-express-lanes-begin-nov/
QuoteThe 395 Express Lanes will replace the current HOV lanes, from near Edsall Road in Fairfax County to the 14th Street Bridge in the District.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 04, 2019, 04:03:31 PM
Tolling begins this coming Sunday, Nov. 10th.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/11/04/tolling-new-express-lanes-begin-nov/
QuoteThe 395 Express Lanes will replace the current HOV lanes, from near Edsall Road in Fairfax County to the 14th Street Bridge in the District.
Looks like it'll be the last of open to all traffic for free outside of peak hours, now Transurban will be tolling 24/7.
They've now backed off that and said it WILL NOT be this weekend.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/11/i-395-tolling-starts-nov-10-in-northern-virginia/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEW%20Breaking%20News&utm_term=2017_WTOP%20Breaking%20News
Edited to add: They've now announced November 17.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/11/04/tolling-new-express-lanes-begin-nov/?hpid=hp_local-news_395-tolls-350pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans
Noticed today while running over I-395 (on a bridge...) that the VMS now indeed indicate a start date of 17th November for the HOT lanes north of Turkeycock. Previously they had just generically said "November".
The reversible lanes north of Turkeycock were closed last night when we were on our way home (even the bridge was closed), but I noticed a bunch of new LGSs mounted on poles on the barriers. I say "LGSs," but I guess they weren't really green. The top part has the purple "E-ZPass Express" logo, then an orange panel said either "Opening November" or "Starting November," then a green panel says "REQUIRES" and underneath that are the E-ZPass and E-ZPass Flex logos. I don't recall these sorts of signs being used in advance of the other HO/T lane operations beginning. In the past there were banners and VMS messages (they're using the latter this time too, of course).
Tolling on 395 Express Lanes starts Sunday. Here's what you need to know. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/tolling-on-395-express-lanes-starts-sunday-heres-what-you-need-to-know/2019/11/16/07742088-07d4-11ea-818c-fcc65139e8c2_story.html)
A few takeaways from this article.
QuoteTolls could reach near $30 for the eight-mile stretch during the peak of the morning rush, officials say.
QuoteUnder federal law, toll facilities are required to maintain a speed of 45 mph 90 percent of the time, state officials said. Transurban has developed an algorithm to help ensure free-flowing traffic at a higher speed than required. The target speed is 65 mph.
And I thought I-95 was bad.
65 mph for the target speed? An "algorithm"? That in itself is definitely a money grab, basically raising that toll rate as high as possible until traffic hits 65 mph. The target speed on all the other HO/T facilities is 45 mph, and should be on this corridor. $30 for an 8-mile trip? That's $3.75 per mile, even I-95 and I-495 don't spike that high, I-95 has hit $30 frequently, notably during peak hours, but that's still only $1.20 per mile on average. So for a trip from Downtown DC to Garrisonville on Transurban's toll lanes could easily cost as high as $60 for 33 miles.
Not to mention, all other hours outside of peak times were free to all traffic, and now will cost drivers during those times, and if these higher rates carry outside of the immediate peak hours, it could easily ADD congestion to the GP lanes as drivers who were previously free now are avoiding the tolls. This same effect happened on I-64 in Hampton Roads when the toll hours were extended (not 24/7 though thankfully), and HRTPO's own study concluded and confirmed this.
IMO, the thing that will be the biggest surprise to most drivers tomorrow is that the approach to the 14th Street Bridge will be subject to the HO/T rules. That is, since the late 1980s, drivers could enter the inner carriageway either from Eads Street (the road marked on the LGSs as "Pentagon") or from Ramp G (the inbound left-side slip ramp that comes up just after you pass Pentagon City) regardless of the number of vehicle occupants and go over the "HOV bridge" into DC. Prior to the late 1980s, Ramp G had not normally been open and was used only when there was some sort of problem requiring traffic to be diverted, but in 1988 or so there was construction on I-395 in DC that led to backups and prompted VDOT to get permission from the feds to open that ramp, and the "HOV bridge," to all traffic. Starting this afternoon when HO/T operations begin, the "open to all traffic" aspect will be altered–Ramp G will remain open, but the segment of road to which it connects will be subject to HO/T restrictions. (The bridge itself won't be, as DC owns it, but because there is no realistic way to reach the "HOV bridge" without passing under the last toll gantry, the bridge itself effectively becomes the "HO/T bridge" in the inbound direction. No corresponding gantry outbound, BTW.)
Obviously the reason for doing this is to keep the HO/T lanes moving. Under the now-defunct HOV rules, there was a backup from roughly Eads Street to the bridge every weekday morning and most weekday afternoons, especially Fridays. That's a disincentive to use the HO/T lanes, so I understand why the toll there is in effect. I suspect this will be easily the most expensive segment (in terms of dollars charged per distance travelled) on a day-to-day basis, and I suspect the general-purpose lanes may get a lot more crowded there (they're bad enough already). One positive effect, though, might be that there should be less incentive for the kamikaze maneuver many people pull where they enter I-395 from the right side roughly in front of Macy's and proceed to try to bomb across all four lanes to the left-side slip ramp regardless of what traffic may already be in those lanes.
(Map link in which I dropped the pin on Ramp G, for those unfamiliar with the reference: https://goo.gl/maps/FtxepT9qZczk6Jcd9 )
From a practical standpoint, I presume VDOT could have reimposed HOV restrictions all the way up to the 14th Street Bridge at any time had they wanted to do so, and therefore as a general matter the idea of imposing the HO/T restriction there doesn't much bug me. I also recall that back in the 1970s, what we now call the HOV restriction was in effect at all times (with an HOV-4 requirement until 1988 or 1989, so from that standpoint I suppose they're simply reimposing a modified version of the old stricter rules. That is to say, VDOT has generally loosened the HOV rules on I-395 over the years, so I presume they could have tightened them again had they seen fit to do so. Either way, though, I'm sure it's going to be a major shock to a lot of people tomorrow, and I'm not sure the effect on the approach to the 14th Street Bridge in the mainline is going to be a positive development.
Aside from that, I'll be very interested in hearing how things go in the morning at the Pentagon. Both ramps connecting Eads Street to the inner carriageways are now reversible. The old southbound ramp from Eads Street to the inner carriageway will now be the exit for the Pentagon when the HO/T lanes are pointed towards DC and the old northbound ramp from the inner carriageway to Eads Street will now be the exit to Pentagon City–I assume the initial intent is that there'll be no left turn from the latter ramp and no right turn from the former ramp. We'll see how long it is before they decide to allow left turns from the latter ramp (that is, restoring the old movement). This summer when I was riding the WMATA shuttle to the Pentagon during the Metro shutdown I definitely noticed how bad the lineup was to exit at Eads Street and how rampant the line-cutting was, so I think it'll be very interesting to hear whether the new traffic pattern alleviates any of that. I won't see any of it since the trains are running again, though.
Regarding sprjus4's gripe about $30, I don't see how that's either news or a surprise. We've seen the tolls on the VDOT-operated HO/T facility on I-66 inside the Beltway in the mornings. I figured all along I-395 would likely be comparable to that, even having three lanes versus two on most of I-66. It's about nine miles from the Beltway to Rosslyn via I-66 (the last toll gantry is west of Spout Run Parkway, however, so the toll is effectively for just under eight miles), so the toll rate might be comparable. Biggest difference during rush hour is that I-66 is HOV-2 to ride free, whereas I-395 is HOV-3.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2019, 12:21:00 PM
Regarding sprjus4's gripe about $30, I don't see how that's either news or a surprise. We've seen the tolls on the VDOT-operated HO/T facility on I-66 inside the Beltway in the mornings. I figured all along I-395 would likely be comparable to that, even having three lanes versus two on most of I-66. It's about nine miles from the Beltway to Rosslyn via I-66 (the last toll gantry is west of Spout Run Parkway, however, so the toll is effectively for just under eight miles), so the toll rate might be comparable. Biggest difference during rush hour is that I-66 is HOV-2 to ride free, whereas I-395 is HOV-3.
I-66 is 2 lanes in the peak direction, 4 lanes total, all tolled / HOV and has a target speed of 45 mph. With the extremely high demand for only 2 lanes, it's understandable to have higher tolls (not saying $40 is acceptable, but higher in general than say I-495, I-395, or I-95)
I-395 has now 7 lanes in the peak direction, 11 lanes tolled, with 3 tolled / HOV and has a target speed of as high as 65 mph. With that many lanes, there's no reason the tolls should be anywhere close to I-66. If Transurban set the target speed to the standard 45 mph used on the other HO/T facilities, the toll would likely be significantly lower and closer to the the rest of the lanes.
Yes, I-395 has a 43% AADT than I-66 does, but I-395 has 72% more lanes than I-66 does.
In the Northern Virginia metro, I understand the need for HO/T lanes and generally don't have an issue with them, but my biggest issues with them - tolling 24/7 as opposed to peak hours only, the high rates & target speed being used on I-395, and I guess now converting the previously free reversible bridge into a HO/T bridge for inbound traffic.
LOL - such a lame answer. "I agree with the principle of HOT lanes, but effective none of the actual implementation".
The world moves on, buddy. This time next year, people will forget that the old HOV system even existed. Memories are short up here - too many people coming and going.
I'll try to get some pictures/observations today from the King St/Shirlington area.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2019, 01:08:57 PM
LOL - such a lame answer. "I agree with the principle of HOT lanes, but effective none of the actual implementation".
Not really, it's quite simple.
The old HOV restricted hours ran from 6 am - 9 am, and 3:30 pm - 6:00 pm, and were open to all traffic for free outside of those hours. With the new HO/T system, the tolls should be in effect for newly added SOV traffic, during those hours, and remain free to all traffic outside of those hours. The purpose of HO/T lanes is to make the lanes less restrictive and add capacity to the overall system. Tolling during previously free hours is -more restrictive-, and only adds congestion to the GP lanes and reduces capacity from the overall system. The concept works all fine and good during peak hours, not during all other hours though. Really, tolling any lanes that were previously free to all is making it -more restrictive- which contradicts the point of the HO/T lane system to make it less restrictive. This has been a proven fact, and is already evident on I-95 where the lanes were previously free outside peak hours, notably VDOT's infamous lane drop at the Occoquan River. Traffic outside of designated peak hours (traffic lingers longer) could easily bypass slowdowns there in the then-free HOV lanes, and there wasn't much if any congestion in those HOV lanes. Now, traffic is forced to pay Transurban's toll on previously-free lanes, and congestion has significantly worsened at the infamous lane drop installed by VDOT in ~2012.
As for toll rates, comparable to the I-95 lanes, a $8 - $10 rate for the 7 mile stretch would be more in the range of reason, given all the lanes, and a regular 45 mph target speed, not Transurban's high 65 mph target speed.
The purpose of HO/T lanes is to have traffic flowing above 45 mph, and that's what most facilities base off of, including all of the other ones in Northern Virginia, not 65 mph which Transurban is using here.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2019, 12:21:00 PM
Regarding sprjus4's gripe about $30, I don't see how that's either news or a surprise. We've seen the tolls on the VDOT-operated HO/T facility on I-66 inside the Beltway in the mornings. I figured all along I-395 would likely be comparable to that, even having three lanes versus two on most of I-66. It's about nine miles from the Beltway to Rosslyn via I-66 (the last toll gantry is west of Spout Run Parkway, however, so the toll is effectively for just under eight miles), so the toll rate might be comparable. Biggest difference during rush hour is that I-66 is HOV-2 to ride free, whereas I-395 is HOV-3.
Plenty of opportunities to pick up slugs or to be a slug yourself, and ride free at HOV-3. Some sluggers start as far south as Fredericksburg.
In any event, if they set a toll too high, traffic drops, total instantaneous revenue will fall; if they set a toll too low, traffic increases, average highway speed will fall; so the appropriate toll is what would maximize revenue while meeting a specified target average highway speed.
I won't be using I-395, and few inter-regional travelers such as myself will, so that is a whole nother group of people who will be using that.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 17, 2019, 01:22:02 PM
The purpose of HO/T lanes is to have traffic flowing above 45 mph, and that's what most facilities base off of, including all of the other ones in Northern Virginia, not 65 mph which Transurban is using here.
Too low, IMHO. If it is only going 45 mph on a freeway, traffic will be very heavy and dense. I would rather be able to rely on 65 mph or better if I am going to pay to use those lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 04:08:42 PM
Too low, IMHO. If it is only going 45 mph on a freeway, traffic will be very heavy and dense. I would rather be able to rely on 65 mph or better if I am going to pay to use those lanes.
Except none of the HO/T lanes in the Northern Virginia region, or anywhere really, utilize a target speed higher than 45 mph, and rightfully so. I'd rather pay a medium toll and be moving 45 mph during the worst period of congestion
(remember, the target speed may be 45 mph, but most times it will be moving the speed limit or higher) rather than an outrageous toll just to be moving slightly faster.
Setting a target speed as high as 65 mph results in higher toll which results in less usage which results in more general purpose congestion. A medium target speed of 45 mph during heaviest congestion allows the tolls to be more reasonable, the HO/T lanes to attract more people, and pull people out of the general purpose lanes reducing congestion in them. The goal of HO/T lanes should be enabling the entire system (GP lanes and HO/T lanes) to carry more vehicles and people, and for all lanes to flow smoother, not just let the GP lanes choke to death and the HO/T lanes carry the few people paying the high toll moving at 70+ mph and the carpools.
I've had my doubts about expanding the HO/T lanes down to the Hampton Roads region, but it seems we're better handling and properly using the system for overall system performance increase rather than focusing so hard on getting those HO/T lanes to never move below 65 mph and not giving much care to the general purpose lanes in the process. It's also ran by the state rather than a private entity who is in reality simply looking to make a profit, and is indeed doing so.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 17, 2019, 01:22:02 PM
....
The old HOV restricted hours ran from 6 am - 9 am, and 3:30 pm - 6:00 pm, and were open to all traffic for free outside of those hours. ....
Of course, once upon a time I-395's reversible lanes were HOV-4 at all times, though the term "HOV-4" wasn't then in use. Back then the reversible lanes ended roughly where the Franconia—Springfield Parkway overpass is now (maybe a little further south). I presume VDOT could have reimposed the older HOV rules if they saw fit to do so, which is why I don't have the same beef about "taking away lanes open to all traffic." The I-95 lanes south of Springfield down to Dumfries had never been subject to the 24/7 HOV rule (nor to HOV-4, though that part is irrelevant), so I view the changeover there differently from how I view I-395.
Here's an old sign approaching Turkeycock. Note the HOV hours. At all other times, the lanes were closed in this direction. (Somewhere I have a bigger copy of this photo, but I can't find my Photobucket password to download it so I can post it in a viewable format.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191117/ca583c5c9c5f258358b927efff57936b.jpg)
BTW, out of curiosity I looked to see what they're estimating the toll to be from the Beltway to DC via I-395. As of about 4:55 this afternoon the website said $4.35. I don't know what the signs on the road show, whether they continue to list "395-236" as the last line because it's the end of a "segment" or whether they show I-395 destinations, and I don't know whether the I-95 lanes will show up as a separate transaction on an E-ZPass statement than the I-395 lanes. I might see the signs tomorrow morning on my way to the Springfield Metro unless I go to Huntington. As to the other question, maybe I'll find out next weekend if the lanes are pointing in the correct direction for Saturday afternoon's Caps game (they probably won't be).
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2019, 04:47:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 17, 2019, 01:22:02 PM
....
The old HOV restricted hours ran from 6 am - 9 am, and 3:30 pm - 6:00 pm, and were open to all traffic for free outside of those hours. ....
Of course, once upon a time I-395's reversible lanes were HOV-4 at all times, though the term "HOV-4" wasn't then in use. Back then the reversible lanes ended roughly where the Franconia—Springfield Parkway overpass is now (maybe a little further south). I presume VDOT could have reimposed the older HOV rules if they saw fit to do so, which is why I don't have the same beef about "taking away lanes open to all traffic." The I-95 lanes south of Springfield down to Dumfries had never been subject to the 24/7 HOV rule (nor to HOV-4, though that part is irrelevant), so I view the changeover there differently from how I view I-395.
Here's an old sign approaching Turkeycock. Note the HOV hours. At all other times, the lanes were closed in this direction. (Somewhere I have a bigger copy of this photo, but I can't find my Photobucket password to download it so I can post it in a viewable format.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191117/ca583c5c9c5f258358b927efff57936b.jpg)
Nonetheless, Transurban's territory extension is only making the lanes -more restrictive- than they were in the past couple of decades, which contradicts the whole idea of HOV to HO/T conversion, to make the lanes less restrictive and maximize the traffic using them. If a SOV traveler was going southbound for a good distance oat 6:30 pm and there was lingering congestion in the mainlines, they could hop in the HOV lanes free of charge / restriction and avoid it. Now, they would be subject to a high toll (because of mainline congestion) and more than likely they will now chose to stay in the general purpose lanes and sit in traffic because of not wanting to pay a toll. Times this by thousands of vehicles during congestion during off-peak times now avoiding the "bypass" lanes that now are tolled high, and it only adds congestion to the GP lanes, does not maximize usage of the reversible lanes, and decreases the amount of vehicles utilizing the entire system.
That's my main issue with these HO/T lane conversions. New construction, like I-495, understandable more (but still disagree w the non-peak hour tolling) but when the lanes are already pre-existing restricted only during peak hours, they shouldn't be extended 24/7.
Then there's also weekends and holidays which were open to all traffic free of charge. Now that is gone too.
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 04:01:38 PM
I won't be using I-395, and few inter-regional travelers such as myself will, so that is a whole nother group of people who will be using that.
Few inter-regional travelers likely use the I-95 and I-495 lanes as well. I probably sound like a broken record, but the majority of traffic is local, not thru.
Drove from Shirlington to Pentagon City in the afternoon...Near Shirlington at around 4:30 PM, the lanes were out-of-operation, and there were work vehicles in the HOT lanes (right around where the Shirlington Rotary is). All of the signage had been unwrapped, so I wonder if there was an issue with opening the lanes. While the green arrows were lit-up in the northbound direction, the VMS/price sign said "Lanes closed, do not enter".
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 17, 2019, 04:15:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 04:08:42 PM
Too low, IMHO. If it is only going 45 mph on a freeway, traffic will be very heavy and dense. I would rather be able to rely on 65 mph or better if I am going to pay to use those lanes.
Except none of the HO/T lanes in the Northern Virginia region, or anywhere really, utilize a target speed higher than 45 mph, and rightfully so.
Not my experience.
I have been downloading my EZPass transactions since Jan. 2018, and (just reviewed) have taken 12 trips on I-495 HOT lanes, and 37 trips on the I-95 HOT Lanes.
Very rarely am I not able to maintain 65 mph, and then only relatively briefly below.
Traffic even in the center of rush hours typically runs at about 70 mph, with plenty going 72 to 75 mph.
Part of why I like them so much, they typically run like a busy but full speed rural Interstate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 17, 2019, 05:47:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 04:01:38 PM
I won't be using I-395, and few inter-regional travelers such as myself will, so that is a whole nother group of people who will be using that.
Few inter-regional travelers likely use the I-95 and I-495 lanes as well. I probably sound like a broken record, but the majority of traffic is local, not thru.
I would need to see the results of traffic engineering studies to do exact analysis, but I see plenty of out of state plates on the HOT lanes from the well known EZPass states, including Maryland which while "local" in some ways, a Maryland vehicle in Virginia is still "inter-regional."
Who cares about long-haul travelers. Interstates should support the local metro areas...long-haul drivers (outside of truckers) are a niche market segment anyways. For long distances, people fly or take the train (at least on the east coast).
Let's say the HOT lanes carry 20,000 people in rush hour period. You're bound to see several out of state tags, but even 200 of them is only 1% of traffic.
It won't need engineering work. It'll just need Transurban to release stats on whose utilized the lanes.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2019, 08:32:02 PM
Who cares about long-haul travelers. Interstates should support the local metro areas...long-haul drivers (outside of truckers) are a niche market segment anyways. For long distances, people fly or take the train (at least on the east coast).
I am one of those long distance travelers, at least in the sense of benefitting from the HOT lanes on I-95 and I-495.
I'm not going the take a plane or train to go from Virginia to Maryland. Unless it is Amtrak or WMATA and I am going to a central station.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2019, 08:43:34 PM
Let's say the HOT lanes carry 20,000 people in rush hour period. You're bound to see several out of state tags, but even 200 of them is only 1% of traffic.
Probably about 15% to 20%.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2019, 08:43:34 PM
It won't need engineering work. It'll just need Transurban to release stats on whose utilized the lanes.
Send an e-mail and ask them, or VDOT. Summary data should be available by FOIA request.
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 09:02:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2019, 08:32:02 PM
Who cares about long-haul travelers. Interstates should support the local metro areas...long-haul drivers (outside of truckers) are a niche market segment anyways. For long distances, people fly or take the train (at least on the east coast).
I am one of those long distance travelers, at least in the sense of benefitting from the HOT lanes on I-95 and I-495.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2019, 08:43:34 PM
Let's say the HOT lanes carry 20,000 people in rush hour period. You're bound to see several out of state tags, but even 200 of them is only 1% of traffic.
Probably about 15% to 20%.
1 in 5 vehicles being an out of state motorist during rush hour is mockingly laughable.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2019, 08:43:34 PM
It won't need engineering work. It'll just need Transurban to release stats on whose utilized the lanes.
Send an e-mail and ask them, or VDOT. Summary data should be available by FOIA request.
[/quote]
I'm not the one concerned about it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2019, 09:06:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 09:02:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2019, 08:43:34 PM
Let's say the HOT lanes carry 20,000 people in rush hour period. You're bound to see several out of state tags, but even 200 of them is only 1% of traffic.
Probably about 15% to 20%.
1 in 5 vehicles being an out of state motorist during rush hour is mockingly laughable.
Go ahead and have a good horselaugh! :-)
In the center of rush hours, probably yeah. I'm usually on the periphery of rush hours.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2019, 09:06:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 09:02:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2019, 08:32:02 PM
Who cares about long-haul travelers. Interstates should support the local metro areas...long-haul drivers (outside of truckers) are a niche market segment anyways. For long distances, people fly or take the train (at least on the east coast).
I am one of those long distance travelers, at least in the sense of benefitting from the HOT lanes on I-95 and I-495.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2019, 08:43:34 PM
Let's say the HOT lanes carry 20,000 people in rush hour period. You're bound to see several out of state tags, but even 200 of them is only 1% of traffic.
Probably about 15% to 20%.
1 in 5 vehicles being an out of state motorist during rush hour is mockingly laughable.
But remember, there's a large amount of thru traffic that clutters Northern Virginia, and Maryland's lack of bypass is the sole reason congestion exists.
By out of state, are you referring to Maryland plates?
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 17, 2019, 09:12:06 PM
But remember, there's a large amount of thru traffic that clutters Northern Virginia, and Maryland's lack of bypass is the sole reason congestion exists.
"Maryland's lack of [a] bypass is the sole reason congestion exists."
That is what is known as a Strawman Fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 17, 2019, 09:12:06 PM
But remember, there's a large amount of thru traffic that clutters Northern Virginia, and Maryland's lack of bypass is the sole reason congestion exists.
"Maryland's lack of [a] bypass is the sole reason congestion exists."
That is what is known as a Strawman Fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy
I think it's known as mocking.
Quote from: Alps on November 18, 2019, 12:10:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 17, 2019, 09:12:06 PM
But remember, there's a large amount of thru traffic that clutters Northern Virginia, and Maryland's lack of bypass is the sole reason congestion exists.
"Maryland's lack of [a] bypass is the sole reason congestion exists."
That is what is known as a Strawman Fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy
I think it's known as mocking.
There is a progression series in human conflict when someone keeps saying the same thing over and over again, where you can express to the person in question --
1. Irritation
2. Annoyance
3. Sarcasm
4. Mockery
5. Derision
If you don't consider using this process, then you risk the other person using you as a foil, so that they can keep saying the same thing over and over again.
Hopefully you won't need to go thru all the steps.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2019, 05:00:30 PM
BTW, out of curiosity I looked to see what they're estimating the toll to be from the Beltway to DC via I-395. As of about 4:55 this afternoon the website said $4.35. I don't know what the signs on the road show, whether they continue to list "395-236" as the last line because it's the end of a "segment" or whether they show I-395 destinations, and I don't know whether the I-95 lanes will show up as a separate transaction on an E-ZPass statement than the I-395 lanes. I might see the signs tomorrow morning on my way to the Springfield Metro unless I go to Huntington. As to the other question, maybe I'll find out next weekend if the lanes are pointing in the correct direction for Saturday afternoon's Caps game (they probably won't be).
Postings on I-95 this morning suggest that the 395 express lanes are its own segment...395/236 still shown as the endpoint of a segment on VMSs where there is space to have destinations further north on them.
^^^^
I noted the same for the toll rate sign near the Frontier Drive exit on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. Makes sense that "395-236" would be the bottom line, of course, as that's a "decision point" that marks the logical end of a "segment."
I didn't get to hear any news coverage this morning and I only heard one full traffic report on WTOP. They mentioned the new rules, and the fact that the left lane becomes the exit lane at the Pentagon. I thought the way they worded it could have been clearer. He said "there are now continuous express lanes north to the Pentagon." Well, to many people there already were–the reversible roadway has been called "the express lanes" since the 1970s and it's why Bob Marbourg was adamant about always saying "the E-ZPass lanes" (the terminology caused him much angst back in 2012 when the Beltway HO/T lanes opened).
Photo from WTOP showing one of the rate signs for I-395 (it doesn't say which entrance this is):
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191118/628162605088a8f47cf26c9554400ab9.jpg)
https://twitter.com/wtoptraffic/status/1196417414067560450?s=21
https://twitter.com/hhowardwtop/status/1196420362503884807?s=21
$5.10 doesn't seem too bad.
Also...remember...free flowing lanes means there should be adaquete room between vehicles; an often cited example is 1 car length for every 10 mph. People are so used to going 65 mph with about 1 car length between vehicles that it's forgotten how to actually drive defensively.
I expected $10 for that segment, so $5.10 isn't nearly as high as I'd have thought. That at least suggests the tolls are keeping the inner carriageway moving, but what we can't see from those tweets is how far back the backup in the mainline goes and how heavy it is. (That is, the mainline is always heavy, but it moves slowly until around Exit 8B. The question is whether it's heavier and slower.) Also be interesting to know how much more bad behavior like driving on the shoulders and using the onramp acceleration lanes as passing lanes has been going on.
Edited to add: BTW, for those who don't know, the last inbound toll gantry is at the location I've circled in yellow here. It's roughly above the old abandoned pedestrian tunnel.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191118/e9f88d374e06a4543c91896a490c4b1e.jpg)
https://twitter.com/adamtuss/status/1196489148187717633?s=21
Has the related project to widen I-395 to 4 southbound lanes between Duke Street and Edsall road been completed yet? Should definitely help relieve that persistent bottleneck.
How worse has the backup over the I-395 bridge into DC gotten now that it's within Transurban's territory?
IMO, if Transurban wants to speed commuters over the bridge, how about they build a new reversible bridge dedicated for that purpose instead of taking over a pre-existing toll free bridge?
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 18, 2019, 04:05:04 PM
Has the related project to widen I-395 to 4 southbound lanes between Duke Street and Edsall road been completed yet? Should definitely help relieve that persistent bottleneck.
Work on that is still in progress.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 18, 2019, 04:05:04 PM
Has the related project to widen I-395 to 4 southbound lanes between Duke Street and Edsall road been completed yet? Should definitely help relieve that persistent bottleneck.
Work on that is still in progress.
According to VDOT's website, the final I-395 project completion is projected to be in summer of 2020 so I guess that's around when that particular aspect should be opened.
$8.25 right now to drive from DC to I-95. Funny, it would have been free and open to all traffic had it been last week. This is the stuff that only makes congestion worse in the GP lanes, decreases overall usage of the system, and puts less vehicles through total.
But what does Transurban care about? Solving congestion, or their revenue stream?
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 18, 2019, 06:07:16 PM
$8.25 right now to drive from DC to I-95. Funny, it would have been free and open to all traffic had it been last week. This is the stuff that only makes congestion worse in the GP lanes, decreases overall usage of the system, and puts less vehicles through total.
Nonsense. It would have been closed to vehicles with less than 3 people, and now some of them are removed from the GP lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 18, 2019, 04:33:57 PM
IMO, if Transurban wants to speed commuters over the bridge, how about they build a new reversible bridge dedicated for that purpose instead of taking over a pre-existing toll free bridge?
D.C. and Virginia made that decision. Not Transurban.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 18, 2019, 06:07:16 PM
$8.25 right now to drive from DC to I-95. Funny, it would have been free and open to all traffic had it been last week. This is the stuff that only makes congestion worse in the GP lanes, decreases overall usage of the system, and puts less vehicles through total.
But what does Transurban care about? Solving congestion, or their revenue stream?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191119/dd25bfc95a63a7bc0c411f6b7cc5da84.jpg)
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 18, 2019, 06:07:16 PM
$8.25 right now to drive from DC to I-95. Funny, it would have been free and open to all traffic had it been last week. This is the stuff that only makes congestion worse in the GP lanes, decreases overall usage of the system, and puts less vehicles through total.
Nonsense. It would have been closed to vehicles with less than 3 people, and now some of them are removed from the GP lanes.
In fairness, the broken record posted at 18:07. At that time, HOV wouldn't have been in effect under the most recent HOV rules.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 09:18:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
Nonsense. It would have been closed to vehicles with less than 3 people, and now some of them are removed from the GP lanes.
In fairness, the broken record posted at 18:07. At that time, HOV wouldn't have been in effect under the most recent HOV rules.
Open to all traffic southbound at 6:01 PM?
Sounds like a recipe for congestion in the express roadway.
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:21:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 09:18:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
Nonsense. It would have been closed to vehicles with less than 3 people, and now some of them are removed from the GP lanes.
In fairness, the broken record posted at 18:07. At that time, HOV wouldn't have been in effect under the most recent HOV rules.
Open to all traffic southbound at 6:01 PM?
Sounds like a recipe for congestion in the express roadway.
It did indeed open to all traffic at 18:00, and it got backed up within five minutes. A lot of assholes parked on the shoulder every night near Eads Street for up to 30 minutes waiting for 6:00 so they could race into the reversible lanes right as HOV ended. (To be clear, I didn't object to timing one's entry–I objected to parking on the shoulder to wait.)
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 18, 2019, 06:07:16 PM
$8.25 right now to drive from DC to I-95. Funny, it would have been free and open to all traffic had it been last week. This is the stuff that only makes congestion worse in the GP lanes, decreases overall usage of the system, and puts less vehicles through total.
Nonsense. It would have been closed to vehicles with less than 3 people, and now some of them are removed from the GP lanes.
Nope, the HOV restrictions only ran from 3:30 pm - 6:00 pm. Free to all traffic all other times. The toll remained in the $7 - $8 range until well after 7 pm.
I'd like to see Transurban / VDOT complete a report on the impacts to the general purpose lanes from converting the existing free, tax dollar funded, open to all traffic lanes outside of peak hours, weekends, and holidays to HO/T operation, along the I-95 and I-395 corridor.
The HRTPO completed such report on the lanes in Hampton Roads, and indeed concluded the extended hours (only extended from 2 hours to 4 hours - 8 hours total of HO/T operation per day - during peak hours, still remains free to all outside the extended hours, weekends, and holidays) only had a negative impact on the general purpose lanes, reduced average speeds, decreased the total amount of vehicles the system (both GP lanes and HO/T lanes combined) could carry, and increased congestion. Because of this, they are recommending that all future lanes in the Hampton Roads region be only tolled / HOV restricted during peak hours, and remain open to all traffic all other times, not a 24/7 operation like Transurban has for some reason. I'd highly imagine it's the same situation along I-95 and I-395, and it definitely choked up that bottleneck at the Occoquan River going southbound with VDOT's poorly designed lane drop, as traffic outside the designated hours could easily bypass it free of charge in the reversible lanes, and there was more throughput overall.
There's no good reason HO/T operations need to be 24/7, especially when it's on pre-existing tax dollar funded lanes that were previously only peak hour restricted. It might be a hard pill for some roadgeeks to swallow, but a lot of people would agree. If needed, the hours could be extended slightly, but there's no good reason a toll needs to be collected for a large amount of the day, on weekends, or holidays.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 09:28:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:21:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 09:18:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
Nonsense. It would have been closed to vehicles with less than 3 people, and now some of them are removed from the GP lanes.
In fairness, the broken record posted at 18:07. At that time, HOV wouldn't have been in effect under the most recent HOV rules.
Open to all traffic southbound at 6:01 PM?
Sounds like a recipe for congestion in the express roadway.
It did indeed open to all traffic at 18:00, and it got backed up within five minutes. A lot of assholes parked on the shoulder every night near Eads Street for up to 30 minutes waiting for 6:00 so they could race into the reversible lanes right as HOV ended. (To be clear, I didn't object to timing one's entry–I objected to parking on the shoulder to wait.)
All along the shoulders on Washington Blvd as well. Highly dangerous and clearly illegal.
I noticed it a ton as I would drive into Georgetown for night school (classes started 6:30 PM, so I'd be on my way in by 5:45 from Shirlington). Saw that stuff every damn day. I'm amazed nobody got rear-ended and died.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 18, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
There's no good reason HO/T operations need to be 24/7,
Because plenty of people are willing to pay, not knowing even in low volume times whether there may be something that causes congestion, that might not have happened yet upon the entry decision, and that the tolls help the overall bottom line to help support those who ride free (3+ riders), and provide subsidies for transit.
Broken record, this has been answered many times.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 09:28:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:21:11 PM
Open to all traffic southbound at 6:01 PM?
Sounds like a recipe for congestion in the express roadway.
It did indeed open to all traffic at 18:00, and it got backed up within five minutes. A lot of assholes parked on the shoulder every night near Eads Street for up to 30 minutes waiting for 6:00 so they could race into the reversible lanes right as HOV ended. (To be clear, I didn't object to timing one's entry–I objected to parking on the shoulder to wait.)
That answers the question about the problem of opening to all traffic at 6:01 pm.
Congestion problems on side roads, and a mainline that has significantly lower capacity when backed up as opposed to free flowing.
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 10:22:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 18, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
There's no good reason HO/T operations need to be 24/7,
Because plenty of people are willing to pay, not knowing even in low volume times whether there may be something that causes congestion, that might not have happened yet upon the entry decision, and that the tolls help the overall bottom line to help support those who ride free (3+ riders), and provide subsidies for transit.
Broken record, this has been answered many times.
"Might be". But not "need to be."
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2019, 12:36:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 10:22:36 PM
Because plenty of people are willing to pay, not knowing even in low volume times whether there may be something that causes congestion, that might not have happened yet upon the entry decision, and that the tolls help the overall bottom line to help support those who ride free (3+ riders), and provide subsidies for transit.
"Might be". But not "need to be."
Not a need, but enough of a market desire.
I get the concept, but didn't tax dollars pay for the construction of the lanes? That's what a lot of people's issues are with the whole 24/7 tolling on I-95 and I-395 that previously wasn't a thing. They didn't implement it in Hampton Roads, and there's been no negative impacts not having 24/7 tolls. VDOT didn't implement it on I-66. So far, Transurban has been only entity to implement 24/7 tolling on pre-existing lanes.
Another thing - you say it helps congestion in the "express" lanes, and that's all fine and good, but that traffic has to go somewhere when you kick people out to get it free-flowing - right back into the general purpose lanes and only adds / worsens congestion. The point of HO/T lanes is to make the entire system flow faster - not strictly the HO/T lanes complete free-flow 65+ mph and barely moving GP lanes. It decreases capacity on the overall system, and contradicts the concept.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 19, 2019, 07:14:11 AM
I get the concept, but didn't tax dollars pay for the construction of the lanes? That's what a lot of people's issues are with the whole 24/7 tolling on I-95 and I-395 that previously wasn't a thing. They didn't implement it in Hampton Roads, and there's been no negative impacts not having 24/7 tolls. VDOT didn't implement it on I-66. So far, Transurban has been only entity to implement 24/7 tolling.
Click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ...
Private funds paid for widening as well as extensions of the HOT lanes, and in the billions. H.R. did not do that, and volumes are much lower in any case. The only tolls on I-66 are inside the Beltway where all lanes are managed in peak hours and all lanes are unmanaged at other times. Nearly all tollroads toll 24/7.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 19, 2019, 07:14:11 AM
Another thing - you say it helps congestion in the "express" lanes, and that's all fine and good, but that traffic has to go somewhere when you kick people out to get it free-flowing
IOW it would no longer be managed lanes, but effectively GP.
I'm mildly amused that the person who spends the most time railing against the HO/T lanes doesn't even live in the DC area.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 19, 2019, 08:38:15 AM
I'm mildly amused that the person who spends the most time railing against the HO/T lanes doesn't even live in the DC area.
Neither do I, but I sure make use of them!
Some folks don't like the fact that the world doesn't work they the way they think it should.
https://twitter.com/adamtuss/status/1196877172281159689?s=21
Was 395's HO/T roadway widened to three lanes like 95's was, or is it still only two lanes? If the latter, where does the third lane drop?
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2019, 02:26:56 PM
Some folks don't like the fact that the world doesn't work they the way they think it should.
Aren't you the one who has spent hours upon hours for 2 years now continuously bashing the I-87 proposal in North Carolina and putting your same repetitive viewpoints anytime new postings come up in that thread? Continuously complaining that Maryland hasn't participated in a bypass study? Dispute studies that indicate higher cost estimates than you believe they should be, or dispute really any study that doesn't agree with your viewpoint? Disputed a western I-73 routing for quite a bit of time? That's just to name a few.
You're no perfect either. The world doesn't always work the way you want it to.
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 19, 2019, 03:35:36 PM
Was 395's HO/T roadway widened to three lanes like 95's was, or is it still only two lanes? If the latter, where does the third lane drop?
It was expanded to three lanes, but all they did was reduce the lane widths below standard to 11 ft and eliminated the shoulder on one side, the same process on I-95.
Nonetheless, it works to adequately provide 3 lanes.
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 19, 2019, 03:35:36 PM
Was 395's HO/T roadway widened to three lanes like 95's was, or is it still only two lanes? If the latter, where does the third lane drop?
There are three lanes up to the Pentagon. At that point, the third lane (left lane) becomes exit-only to the Pentagon on the left via what used to be the southbound entrance from Eads Street–it's now a reversible ramp. The other two lanes continue into DC as they always have, except the northbound exit ramp that used to be marked "Pentagon" is also now a reversible ramp and is used as a southbound entry from Pentagon City when the reversible lanes are pointed southbound.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 19, 2019, 08:38:15 AM
I'm mildly amused that the person who spends the most time railing against the HO/T lanes doesn't even live in the DC area.
Except I made frequent trips to/from there for two years, a lot of times during peak hours and on Fridays
(not necessarily my choice, but it was either head out then or wait hours upon hours (at least until 7-8 pm for congestion to fully clear), and I decided sucking up the mess I-95 is would still be quicker than waiting) and experienced the issues first hand. Just because it's not primary place of residence, doesn't mean I wasn't there significantly in 2018 and 2019.
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
Click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ...
Isn't that what you've done with threads such as the proposed I-87 for two years now, along with other topics you don't agree with, anytime anything new is mentioned about it, or anytime some positive is mentioned about it?
This is what is known as a hypocrite.
"a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
If you have an issue with my complaints, don't respond. Am I hurting something affiliated with you by mentioning the negative impacts / concepts that exist with the conversion, or VDOT's incompetence that causes you to quickly and always respond and heavily defend Transurban's privatized lanes or VDOT whenever there's a negative mentioned about them? You don't seem to have an issue bashing another DOT or project elsewhere, but when it involves VDOT, you for the most part heavily defend them it seems.
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
H.R. did not do that,
Except 9 miles is under construction, another 12 miles set to begin construction next year, and another 45 miles proposed. The majority of that is new construction, with the other converting existing non-separated HOV lanes into barrier-separated lanes. All of which the Express Lanes Committee has recommended peak hour tolling only, free to all traffic outside hours, remaining consistent with the current HOV system. Over $1 billion will be funded through toll revenue bonds, yet tolling is still proposed only during peak hours.
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
volumes are much lower in any case.
About 162,000 AADT at its peak on I-64, which is similar to I-95 south of Woodbridge, and close to the 180,000 AADT along the majority I-395 and I-495. I've driven the HO/T lanes here during rush hour (mainly because the rates are reasonable, such as $1.50 - $2 during peak hours for 7 miles), they are full and get good usage, but move at 65 - 70 mph without delay. They get decent usage outside of peak hours as well, but still move 65 - 70 mph without delay despite being free of charge. The general purpose lanes also get full during these times and even have break tapping and minor slowdowns, but the free outside of peak hour express lanes still continue moving full speed.
VDOT claims the upcoming project to construct an auxiliary lane between VA-123 and VA-294 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northern-virginia/i-95-south-auxiliary-lane.asp) will allievate the major southbound bottleneck at VDOT's poorly installed lane drop in ~2014.
I fail to see how though, yes it constructs a 4th southbound lane, but it's merely an auxiliary lane between the on-ramp and off-ramp. The 4th lane drop that causes the majority, if not all of the problems, will still be in place.
Now, if they extended the 4th GP lane to become Exit Only at VA-294, and that's what they're calling the "auxiliary lane", then that would indeed solve that issue as that's the point a decent amount of traffic exits, not VA-123, but more than likely they're not.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 19, 2019, 04:14:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2019, 02:26:56 PM
Some folks don't like the fact that the world doesn't work they the way they think it should.
Aren't you the one who has spent hours upon hours for 2 years now continuously bashing the I-87 proposal in North Carolina and putting your same repetitive viewpoints anytime new postings come up in that thread? Continuously complaining that Maryland hasn't participated in a bypass study? Dispute studies that indicate higher cost estimates than you believe they should be, or dispute really any study that doesn't agree with your viewpoint? Disputed a western I-73 routing for quite a bit of time? That's just to name a few.
You're no perfect either. The world doesn't always work the way you want it to.
The bannings will increase until morale improves
Anecdotal sample size of two evening drives from Crystal City to Shirlington (~6:30 PM). And I couldn't notice any difference, nor do I think it will. I expect commuting habits, both time-of-day (i.e. getting onto the HOT lanes at 6:00 PM sharp doesn't do any good anymore, so might as well rethink your whole approach) and mode (e.g. Metrorail vs bus vs slugging vs solo vs VRE) will quickly adapt.
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
Click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ...
You lost me. What's clicking exactly?
Quote from: Duke87 on November 19, 2019, 10:30:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
Click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ...
You lost me. What's clicking exactly?
Not this thread.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 09:28:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:21:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 09:18:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
Nonsense. It would have been closed to vehicles with less than 3 people, and now some of them are removed from the GP lanes.
In fairness, the broken record posted at 18:07. At that time, HOV wouldn't have been in effect under the most recent HOV rules.
Open to all traffic southbound at 6:01 PM?
Sounds like a recipe for congestion in the express roadway.
It did indeed open to all traffic at 18:00, and it got backed up within five minutes. A lot of assholes parked on the shoulder every night near Eads Street for up to 30 minutes waiting for 6:00 so they could race into the reversible lanes right as HOV ended. (To be clear, I didn't object to timing one's entry–I objected to parking on the shoulder to wait.)
Though the Arlington County Police (and to a lesser extent the Virginia State Police) were aware of this practice and would show up a few minutes before the end of the HOV-3 restricted period and issue summonses to the offending drivers.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 18, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
The HRTPO completed such report on the lanes in Hampton Roads, and indeed concluded the extended hours (only extended from 2 hours to 4 hours - 8 hours total of HO/T operation per day - during peak hours, still remains free to all outside the extended hours, weekends, and holidays) only had a negative impact on the general purpose lanes, reduced average speeds, decreased the total amount of vehicles the system (both GP lanes and HO/T lanes combined) could carry, and increased congestion. Because of this, they are recommending that all future lanes in the Hampton Roads region be only tolled / HOV restricted during peak hours, and remain open to all traffic all other times, not a 24/7 operation like Transurban has for some reason. I'd highly imagine it's the same situation along I-95 and I-395, and it definitely choked up that bottleneck at the Occoquan River going southbound with VDOT's poorly designed lane drop, as traffic outside the designated hours could easily bypass it free of charge in the reversible lanes, and there was more throughput overall.
Daily Press: I-64′s new Norfolk toll lanes boosted rush-hour speeds, even in the free lanes, state study finds (https://www.dailypress.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-hot-lanes-norfolk-20191118-2sdwnsppzrcq3djhtj77wh6vsm-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR30s53XTHFtV0W8Bdob2f1ycsechlyIMT74PwsTmj222e04P2LqocpZ6oM)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 20, 2019, 02:02:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 09:28:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:21:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 18, 2019, 09:18:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
Nonsense. It would have been closed to vehicles with less than 3 people, and now some of them are removed from the GP lanes.
In fairness, the broken record posted at 18:07. At that time, HOV wouldn't have been in effect under the most recent HOV rules.
Open to all traffic southbound at 6:01 PM?
Sounds like a recipe for congestion in the express roadway.
It did indeed open to all traffic at 18:00, and it got backed up within five minutes. A lot of assholes parked on the shoulder every night near Eads Street for up to 30 minutes waiting for 6:00 so they could race into the reversible lanes right as HOV ended. (To be clear, I didn't object to timing one's entry–I objected to parking on the shoulder to wait.)
Though the Arlington County Police (and to a lesser extent the Virginia State Police) were aware of this practice and would show up a few minutes before the end of the HOV-3 restricted period and issue summonses to the offending drivers.
That was actually part of what was dangerous–the shoulder-waiters would see the cops coming and would recklessly bomb out into traffic in an effort to avoid getting ticketed.
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2019, 10:33:38 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 19, 2019, 10:30:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
Click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ... click-click ...
You lost me. What's clicking exactly?
Not this thread.
Not for at least one person, anyway, as I'm told. Not sure if that applies to more than one person or not. Only one of them is connected with me elsewhere and can keep me updated on things.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 20, 2019, 02:06:27 PM
Daily Press: I-64′s new Norfolk toll lanes boosted rush-hour speeds, even in the free lanes, state study finds (https://www.dailypress.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-hot-lanes-norfolk-20191118-2sdwnsppzrcq3djhtj77wh6vsm-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR30s53XTHFtV0W8Bdob2f1ycsechlyIMT74PwsTmj222e04P2LqocpZ6oM)
QuoteBut for drivers on the same stretch earlier in the afternoon, traveling at 3 p.m. on the free lanes, average speed fell, from 55 mph to 37. In years past, drivers could travel at that time on what are now HOT lanes for free, even if they had no passengers. Now, tolls for such vehicles start at 2 p.m., and the result has been a nearly 2,400-vehicle drop in traffic at mid-afternoon, before the peak of the rush hour.
Another big change seems to be that some commuters can sleep in a bit – there's been an 800-vehicle drop in 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. westbound traffic on the reversible lanes. Drivers used to be able to travel for free at that time on the reversible lanes, even if they had no passengers.
From the HRTPO Express Lanes Working Committee recommendations (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P10%20-%20Express%20Lanes%20WC%20to%20HRTPO%20Board%20101719.pdf) -
QuoteTo minimize impacts to the Region's motorists, the Committee recommends that, wherever practicable, the roadways that make up the Express Lanes Network be restricted to HOT operation during peak traffic times and be open to all traffic outside of the restricted periods.
QuoteIn consideration of policy recommendations to HRTPO, the Committee recommends that HRTAC consider the following items when developing the master tolling agreement with VDOT:
- Prioritize traffic throughput over revenue generation.
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 09:02:52 PM
Send an e-mail and ask them, or VDOT. Summary data should be available by FOIA request.
Wrote them a request inquiry the other day regarding this...
QuoteI had a question regarding overall usage of the HO/T lanes, specifically the amount of local traffic that uses it compared to long-distance / out of state thru traffic. Would it be possible to get those numbers on the amount / percentage of traffic usage on a daily / annual basis compared to long-distance / out of state thru traffic compared to local traffic? I would imagine this data is allowed to be requested and released and is in public record. Thank you
...and this was the response...
Quote
Thank you for contacting Express Lanes Customer Care.
It will be my pleasure to assist you with your inquiry.
We apologize for any inconvenience. Your requested details are currently not available.
For further questions, please contact us at 1-855-495-9777, Monday through Friday (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM).
Safe Travels,
Bien G.
Express Lanes Customer Care
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 20, 2019, 05:47:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 09:02:52 PM
Send an e-mail and ask them, or VDOT. Summary data should be available by FOIA request.
Wrote them a request inquiry the other day regarding this...
QuoteI had a question regarding overall usage of the HO/T lanes, specifically the amount of local traffic that uses it compared to long-distance / out of state thru traffic. Would it be possible to get those numbers on the amount / percentage of traffic usage on a daily / annual basis compared to long-distance / out of state thru traffic compared to local traffic? I would imagine this data is allowed to be requested and released and is in public record. Thank you
...and this was the response...
Quote
Thank you for contacting Express Lanes Customer Care.
It will be my pleasure to assist you with your inquiry.
We apologize for any inconvenience. Your requested details are currently not available.
For further questions, please contact us at 1-855-495-9777, Monday through Friday (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM).
Safe Travels,
Bien G.
Express Lanes Customer Care
You'll need to write a FOIA request thru the state. If the info is releasable, they'll have the power to get it.
Sometimes you may need to be specific. The way you wrote it may be ok or they may say it's, not specific enough. Specifically, you may need to define "local traffic" as in within a specific zip code range, or account holders with a Virginia address. Likewise, define long-distance or out-of-state to be the opposite of local traffic.
If it's a state vendor, then the information would be available through whatever the Commonwealth of Virginia calls its FOIA or state Open Records Act. (Kentucky calls it "Open Records" under Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 61.) A reporter in Louisville makes a monthly request for records relating to the Louisville toll bridges. KYTC accommodates those requests.
The Express Lanes "customer care" representative probably doesn't know beans about the availability of government records, but VDOT certainly will. The trick may be finding out exactly who to contact. KYTC requires the request to be made of the Office of Legal Services in Frankfort. Requests to the district offices, or to other offices within the cabinet (such as Public Affairs, which handles press inquiries) are redirected to Legal Services.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2019, 10:47:50 AM
The Express Lanes "customer care" representative probably doesn't know beans about the availability of government records, but VDOT certainly will. The trick may be finding out exactly who to contact. KYTC requires the request to be made of the Office of Legal Services in Frankfort. Requests to the district offices, or to other offices within the cabinet (such as Public Affairs, which handles press inquiries) are redirected to Legal Services.
I believe that H.B. is correct. Try this page for starters, which is the VDOT Freedom of Information Act page.
Freedom of Information Act (https://www.virginiadot.org/info/foia.asp)
Here's the contact person at VDOT for FOIA matters:
QuoteHolly D. Jones
VDOT Annex Building
1401 E. Broad St., 11th floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-371-8696
e-mail: Holly.Jones@vdot.virginia.gov
Disclaimer - I
do not know Holly Jones and Holly Jones
does not know me.
Can we make a separate thread to discuss the philosophical arguments for and against HOT lane and associated arcane legal matters?
In the meanwhile, thousands of commuters used the Northern Virginia HOT today, and thousands will tomorrow as well.
I drove the I-395 HOT lanes southbound Tuesday evening entering about 7:50 pm.
I went thru D.C. using US-50 freeway, Kenilworth Avenue (freeway), I-695 and I-395.
I entered the express lanes in D.C. from the GP lanes near the Jefferson Memorial, and crossed the middle 14th Street Bridge, and then followed the HOT lanes all the way to where they end at Garrisonville.
Very fine trip and newly paved 3-lane express roadway on I-395 and that roadway continues as the I-95 3-lane express roadway.
The toll was $2.20 on I-395, starting near the Pentagon where you can exit to the GP lanes if you don't want to enter the HOT lanes. So the 14th Street Bridge southbound express roadway has no toll, but is HOV-3.
Has anyone driven the I-395 HOT lanes northbound? Is there a toll for the 14th Street Bridge northbound express roadway? If it is untolled is there any way to enter it other than the HOT lanes?
The toll for the I-95 HOT lanes was $9.50.
I would say that the I-395 HOT lanes were running at 20-25% of capacity and the I-95 HOT lanes were running at 20-30% capacity. That is just eyeball of my surroundings and not meant to be scientific.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 21, 2019, 08:03:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2019, 10:47:50 AM
The Express Lanes "customer care" representative probably doesn't know beans about the availability of government records, but VDOT certainly will. The trick may be finding out exactly who to contact. KYTC requires the request to be made of the Office of Legal Services in Frankfort. Requests to the district offices, or to other offices within the cabinet (such as Public Affairs, which handles press inquiries) are redirected to Legal Services.
I believe that H.B. is correct. Try this page for starters, which is the VDOT Freedom of Information Act page.
Freedom of Information Act (https://www.virginiadot.org/info/foia.asp)
Here's the contact person at VDOT for FOIA matters:
QuoteHolly D. Jones
VDOT Annex Building
1401 E. Broad St., 11th floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-371-8696
e-mail: Holly.Jones@vdot.virginia.gov
Disclaimer - I do not know Holly Jones and Holly Jones does not know me.
Would someone contact her directly, or thru a main FOIA email address? I know NJ has a specific form/email group that must be used...emails to a person's state account doesn't count.
To answer Beltway's question about the northbound HO/T lanes on I-395: I have not used them yet (planning to on Wednesday morning). The inbound 14th Street Bridge itself isn't tolled–it's in DC and VDOT doesn't own it–but the approach to the bridge is tolled. If you look back in this thread at reply 1590 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7481.msg2456721#msg2456721), you'll find I posted a picture showing where the last toll gantry is, circled in yellow. So there is no (legal or practical) way to get to the inbound express lane bridge without going under a toll gantry. Notably, this includes people entering at Ramp G, the slip ramp from the mainline that's just east of the mall at Pentagon City and just west of the southbound flyover to US-1 through Crystal City–the ramp whose VMS has read "open to all traffic" for most of the past 30 years.
The toll for that segment has produced a lot of grousing on Twitter and elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, during rush hours it's been a very high toll for the distance travelled compared to the rest of the HO/T lanes in order to keep the traffic flow moving.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 21, 2019, 10:29:24 PM
Can we make a separate thread to discuss the philosophical arguments for and against HOT lane and associated arcane legal matters?
In the meanwhile, thousands of commuters used the Northern Virginia HOT today, and thousands will tomorrow as well.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Beltway on November 22, 2019, 12:16:18 AM
So the 14th Street Bridge southbound express roadway has no toll, but is HOV-3.
The 14th Street Bridges didn't have HOV restrictions, they were open to all traffic, even during peak hours. The southbound bridge remains such, but the Transurban put up toll gantries to charge people northbound for crossing DC's bridge, which isn't even apart of the HO/T system and isn't owned by Virginia.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 22, 2019, 07:12:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 22, 2019, 12:16:18 AM
So the 14th Street Bridge southbound express roadway has no toll, but is HOV-3.
The 14th Street Bridges didn't have HOV restrictions, they were open to all traffic, even during peak hours. The southbound bridge remains such, but the Transurban put up toll gantries to charge people northbound for crossing DC's bridge, which isn't even apart of the HO/T system and isn't owned by Virginia.
They're charging people for using the road that leads to the bridge. VDOT is allowed to do that, just like how in the old days the road leading to the bridge was subject to an HOV-4 restriction at all times.
There's a guy who comments on Washington
Post articles who thinks that last toll gantry violates the US Constitution's Commerce Clause. He's pretty obviously wrong, given the adjacent unrestricted alternative. But I give him points for thinking creatively and not just whining like most of the other people who comment there. It seems the average 21st-century style of commenting is, "These tolls suck, and if you don't agree with me, you suck too. Also, blame the (fill in whichever political party you dislike) because they suck."
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2019, 07:22:39 AM
It seems the average 21st-century style of commenting is, "These tolls suck, and if you don't agree with me, you suck too. Also, blame the (fill in whichever political party you dislike) because they suck."
Except I've never / rarely seen that weak complaint used. The majority of the complaints I've seen on the internet (some road geeks would be surprised to learn it's a decent amount) about the HO/T lane boil down to two logical arguments -
- Transurban is tolling lanes 24/7 that were previously only restricted to peak hours and open to all traffic all other hours free of charge.
- Transurban is tolling DC's bridge which A) was never tolled / restricted recently previously and B) they are tolling a bridge that don't own and never improved.
That second complaint about "tolling DC's bridge" is simply incorrect.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2019, 08:20:31 AM
That second complaint about “tolling DC’s bridge” is simply incorrect.
If the approach to the bridge is tolled, and there is no way to get exit after the toll gantry and before the bridge...then one cannot access the bridge without paying a toll, even if the bridge itself technically isn't tolled.
Is that the situation?
Quote from: jemacedo9 on November 22, 2019, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2019, 08:20:31 AM
That second complaint about "tolling DC's bridge" is simply incorrect.
If the approach to the bridge is tolled, and there is no way to get exit after the toll gantry and before the bridge...then one cannot access the bridge without paying a toll, even if the bridge itself technically isn't tolled.
Is that the situation?
I said that earlier. I was very careful to say that the approach is tolled (unless you're an HOV) such that there is no legal or practical way to reach it without passing under a gantry. But the bridge itself is not tolled.
If someone thinks VDOT can't toll the approach to the bridge simply because the bridge itself isn't in Virginia, then there are a bunch of other tollbooths (or toll gantries) around the country that are improper because they effectively require the payment of a toll to use some portion of pavement that's in another state.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2019, 10:48:45 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on November 22, 2019, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2019, 08:20:31 AM
That second complaint about “tolling DC’s bridge” is simply incorrect.
If the approach to the bridge is tolled, and there is no way to get exit after the toll gantry and before the bridge...then one cannot access the bridge without paying a toll, even if the bridge itself technically isn't tolled.
Is that the situation?
I said that earlier. I was very careful to say that the approach is tolled (unless you’re an HOV) such that there is no legal or practical way to reach it without passing under a gantry. But the bridge itself is not tolled.
If someone thinks VDOT can’t toll the approach to the bridge simply because the bridge itself isn’t in Virginia, then there are a bunch of other tollbooths (or toll gantries) around the country that are improper because they effectively require the payment of a toll to use some portion of pavement that’s in another state.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But it's an interesting perception issue.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2019, 06:05:28 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 21, 2019, 08:03:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2019, 10:47:50 AM
The Express Lanes "customer care" representative probably doesn't know beans about the availability of government records, but VDOT certainly will. The trick may be finding out exactly who to contact. KYTC requires the request to be made of the Office of Legal Services in Frankfort. Requests to the district offices, or to other offices within the cabinet (such as Public Affairs, which handles press inquiries) are redirected to Legal Services.
I believe that H.B. is correct. Try this page for starters, which is the VDOT Freedom of Information Act page.
Freedom of Information Act (https://www.virginiadot.org/info/foia.asp)
Here's the contact person at VDOT for FOIA matters:
QuoteHolly D. Jones
VDOT Annex Building
1401 E. Broad St., 11th floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-371-8696
e-mail: Holly.Jones@vdot.virginia.gov
Disclaimer - I do not know Holly Jones and Holly Jones does not know me.
Would someone contact her directly, or thru a main FOIA email address? I know NJ has a specific form/email group that must be used...emails to a person's state account doesn't count.
It varies by state. KYTC accepts emails to the Open Records coordinator. I'm sure that if Virginia requires a different approach, that could be verified by emailing Ms. Jones.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2019, 10:48:45 AM
I said that earlier. I was very careful to say that the approach is tolled (unless you're an HOV) such that there is no legal or practical way to reach it without passing under a gantry. But the bridge itself is not tolled.
If the bridge was tolled then there would be a higher toll.
D.C. was the one who specified that Ramp G be closed if they were to agree to the I-395 HOT project, so as to prevent I-395 NB traffic from increasing into D.C.; more traffic will be using I-395 NB Express, but that would be counterbalanced by GP traffic no longer entering on Ramp G.
All of the peak hour capacity of I-395 in D.C. is already spoken for and they didn't widen I-395 in D.C.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2019, 10:48:45 AM
If someone thinks VDOT can't toll the approach to the bridge simply because the bridge itself isn't in Virginia, then there are a bunch of other tollbooths (or toll gantries) around the country that are improper because they effectively require the payment of a toll to use some portion of pavement that's in another state.
I would say that if there is no way to use the bridge without paying a toll, then it is effectively a toll bridge. When I think of toll roads, I think in terms of entry/exit, not the specific position of booths/gantries. And yes, I'd agree that those other examples of state line tolls are improper. Just look at the NH Turnpike or the NY Thruway: there are exits just past the state line before tolling begins, precisely to avoid that situation (granted, exit 15 used to be tolled, though that was technically an exit toll inside the ticket system, not a mainline one, and that was before that portion of I-287 was built in NJ, so it was just ramps to NJ 17). All the current tolls on NY's borders are bridge/tunnel tolls.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 22, 2019, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2019, 06:05:28 AM
Quote
I believe that H.B. is correct. Try this page for starters, which is the VDOT Freedom of Information Act page.
Freedom of Information Act (https://www.virginiadot.org/info/foia.asp)
Here's the contact person at VDOT for FOIA matters:
QuoteHolly D. Jones
VDOT Annex Building
1401 E. Broad St., 11th floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-371-8696
e-mail: Holly.Jones@vdot.virginia.gov
Disclaimer - I do not know Holly Jones and Holly Jones does not know me.
Would someone contact her directly, or thru a main FOIA email address? I know NJ has a specific form/email group that must be used...emails to a person's state account doesn't count.
It varies by state. KYTC accepts emails to the Open Records coordinator. I'm sure that if Virginia requires a different approach, that could be verified by emailing Ms. Jones.
Need to be persistent when dealing with government agencies.
The case whether federal, state, local, or trans-local (someone like WMATA for example).
If I don't get a timely answer, I keep pushing until I get an answer; not too quick but one call or e-mail per week is about right. Sometimes it takes awhile but I nearly always get what I am looking for.
^^^^^
There is a parallel bridge on I-395 with more lanes that has no toll (it backs up bigtime, though). Nobody who doesn't want to pay a toll needs to pay any toll at the 14th Street Bridge.
Great info from Beltway. I wish the part about DC insisting on regulating the Ramp G traffic were better-publicized.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2019, 05:22:57 PM
There is a parallel bridge on I-395 with more lanes that has no toll (it backs up bigtime, though). Nobody who doesn't want to pay a toll needs to pay any toll at the 14th Street Bridge.
Wouldn't the traffic backups on there just get worse now that a significant amount of the traffic now opts to use it as opposed to the HOV bridge because of the toll?
The congestion is largely non-existent anymore on the HOV bridge, but that traffic has to go somewhere - to the GP bridge.
When both bridges were congested prior to HO/T, it at least allowed all lanes to be fully utilized. Now, you're squeezing all that traffic onto the GP bridge, choking it more to allow the HOV and toll-payers to drive one more mile congestion-free just to hit congestion once entering DC no matter what.
It's better for both bridges to move 30 - 40 mph rather than the HO/T bridge move 55 mph and the GP bridge move 10 - 15 mph, especially considering there's traffic on the other side for both carriageways no matter what.
If Transurban wants to really get traffic moving, why not build elevated HO/T lanes in DC with direct connectors to a few of the local roads, US-1, and I-695 along with a new HO/T bridge over the Potomac River, then tie into the I-395 HO/T lanes? Then leave the other 4 bridges toll-free to GP traffic.
Effectively, Transurban is charging $5 - $8 at peak hours to traverse 2,000 feet of pavement to then cross DC's bridge.
The real point is simply to charge drivers crossing DC's bridge.
NB Express traffic can exit at Eads Street near the Pentagon if they don't want to cross the 14th Street Bridge.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 22, 2019, 07:12:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 22, 2019, 12:16:18 AM
So the 14th Street Bridge southbound express roadway has no toll, but is HOV-3.
The 14th Street Bridges didn't have HOV restrictions, they were open to all traffic, even during peak hours. The southbound bridge remains such, but the Transurban put up toll gantries to charge people northbound for crossing DC's bridge, which isn't even apart of the HO/T system and isn't owned by Virginia.
Prior to about 1989 or 1988 (within my professional lifetime), the express lanes spans of the 14th Street Bridge were subject to the same HOV requirements as the restricted lanes in Virginia, during the same hours. Especially in the peak P.M. period, MPD-DC (the D.C. municipal police) would conduct HOV enforcement operations on the southbound express lane span, sometimes creating enough of a spectacle that these activities would draw a lot of attention from southbound drivers in the conventional lanes.
^^^^
The broken record thinks that's irrelevant because it's not "recent" enough.
One thing I really don't like about the way the bridge is handled is that it creates an inconsistency where the bridge is restricted northbound but not southbound. One way or the other, please.
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2019, 10:08:30 PM
One thing I really don't like about the way the bridge is handled is that it creates an inconsistency where the bridge is restricted northbound but not southbound. One way or the other, please.
It has to do with the configuration of the ramps between the managed lane and the conventional lanes.
Northbound, Ramp G is near the Pentagon, and some distance from the Virginia end of the 14th Street Bridge, a distance of about 0.8 of a mile (map (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.865711,-77.053108/38.8738872,-77.0436458/@38.8695665,-77.0493003,16z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)).
Southbound, the "Temp" ramp leaves the managed roadway not far from the Virginia shoreline, a distances of about 0.3 of a mile (map (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.8741617,-77.0435526/38.870316,-77.046666/@38.8739132,-77.0440595,19z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)).
The "Temp" ramp is called that because it was built at the request of the predecessor agency to DDOT by VDOT to allow all traffic to use the express lane bridges while there a repair project taking place on the conventional lane spans in the late 1980's. At one point when the work was completed, I think there was a plan to remove the "Temp" ramp and return the HOV restrictions to the express lane span over the Potomac but that never happened.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 22, 2019, 10:26:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2019, 10:08:30 PM
One thing I really don't like about the way the bridge is handled is that it creates an inconsistency where the bridge is restricted northbound but not southbound. One way or the other, please.
It has to do with the configuration of the ramps between the managed lane and the conventional lanes.
Northbound, Ramp G is near the Pentagon, and some distance from the Virginia end of the 14th Street Bridge, a distance of about 0.8 of a mile (map (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.865711,-77.053108/38.8738872,-77.0436458/@38.8695665,-77.0493003,16z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)).
Southbound, the "Temp" ramp leaves the managed roadway not far from the Virginia shoreline, a distances of about 0.3 of a mile (map (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.8741617,-77.0435526/38.870316,-77.046666/@38.8739132,-77.0440595,19z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)).
Is there a point in that 2,640 ft difference that necessitates the tolls?
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 22, 2019, 10:29:46 PM
Is there a point in that 2,640 ft difference that necessitates the tolls?
Ask Transurban. Or ask VDOT.
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2019, 10:08:30 PM
One thing I really don't like about the way the bridge is handled is that it creates an inconsistency where the bridge is restricted northbound but not southbound. One way or the other, please.
DDOT wanted to control the volume of traffic entering the District, as I said in a previous post. All the northbound capacity on DC I-395 and 14th Street is already spoken for in peak hours.
DDOT is willing to allow more traffic with the Virginia express lanes being converted from HOV-3 to HOT-3, counterbalanced by the closure of Ramp G (which still exists for possible future use) to limit traffic exiting from GP to the express lanes.
Southbound DDOT doesn't really need to care if VDOT adds more capacity or how they manage southbound access.
Ramp G has not been closed. People can still use it–but they're subject to the HO/T rules from there to the District. VDOT didn't allow that out of a desire "to toll DC's bridge," as someone else here said. They allowed it to keep the express lanes moving so it wouldn't turn into what you used to see southbound at Route 610 when the HO/T lanes on I-95 first started operating.
(Edited on Saturday morning to fix autocorrect's typo that rendered a sentence unintelligible)
This debate will be moot when DC (pending approval from Congress) creates a HOT lane facility on the SE/SW freeway... :popcorn:
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 23, 2019, 07:39:45 AM
Ramp G has not been closed. People can still use it–but they're subject to the HO/T rules from there to the District. VDOT didn't allow that out of a desire "to toll DC's bridge," as do whine else here said. They allowed it to keep the express lanes moving so it wouldn't turn into what you used to see southbound at Route 610 when the HO/T lanes on I-95 first started operating.
I need to go there and drive it when the express lanes are northbound, to look at things by eyeball.
This May 2019 article says it is a -southbound- ramp that was closed --
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/05/redundant-ramp-to-close-on-i-395/
For those who are unfamiliar with why I refer to it as Ramp G, here are two old Washington Post columns from the period when it was first opened to traffic on a regular basis, which was also the period when HOV restrictions were removed from the approach to the bridge:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1988/12/09/gifts/6b88cbf7-dbee-4e57-9442-f467171a7e87/?p9w22b2p=b2p22p9w00098&tid=a_classic-iphone
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1991/08/01/hov-lanes-revisited/a7fbb33a-d9d4-4f41-adc7-5aae6d12752a/
It's the ramp you can see in the foreground of the right-hand image in this tweet–it looks like a grey Prius and four other cars using the ramp:
https://twitter.com/hhowardwtop/status/1196420362503884807?s=21
Hmmm. The reply tweet sounds......very familiar. (Edited to add: Even more so when you look at his other tweets.) :hmm:
https://twitter.com/joedavid30/status/1199078718372818944?s=21
" On Thanksgiving the 95/395 Express Lanes will be NB all day. "
Good! I'll be able to check out the I-395 HOT lanes northbound.
Rode it southbound Tuesday evening.
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2019, 05:07:00 PM
" On Thanksgiving the 95/395 Express Lanes will be NB all day. "
Good! I'll be able to check out the I-395 HOT lanes northbound.
Rode it southbound Tuesday evening.
I plan to use them for the Wednesday morning commute. I normally take the Metro, but we're going to the Caps game and getting home at 10 PM is a lot faster by car. Not sure whether I'll use them on the way home. May depend on the traffic report–I wouldn't be surprised if the Beltway is backed up such that it makes more sense to pay the toll (at least from Turkeycock, anyway) in order to use the Franconia—Springfield Parkway exit. I'm interested in getting a firsthand look at the lane striping near the new left-side exit for the Pentagon. I've always felt the striping there wasn't done very well for southbound traffic.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2019, 08:38:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2019, 05:07:00 PM
" On Thanksgiving the 95/395 Express Lanes will be NB all day. "
Good! I'll be able to check out the I-395 HOT lanes northbound.
Rode it southbound Tuesday evening.
I plan to use them for the Wednesday morning commute. I normally take the Metro, but we're going to the Caps game and getting home at 10 PM is a lot faster by car. Not sure whether I'll use them on the way home. May depend on the traffic report–I wouldn't be surprised if the Beltway is backed up such that it makes more sense to pay the toll (at least from Turkeycock, anyway) in order to use the Franconia—Springfield Parkway exit. I'm interested in getting a firsthand look at the lane striping near the new left-side exit for the Pentagon. I've always felt the striping there wasn't done very well for southbound traffic.
Yeah, nothing beats actually traveling the new highway (well, widened, and new tolling scheme and management scheme) and viewing it with the Mark 1 Eyeball!
I will likely follow I-395 and I-695 to DC-295 to US-50.
Remember it will be a ghost town by then due to Thanksgiving. Traffic will peak around early/mid-afternoon that day. By Wednesday night, nobody (except us few locals!)
I used the I-395 HO/T lanes for the first time during today's morning rush hour. Rainy morning. There was a backup in the local lanes on I-95 in Springfield extending over the flyover to the Inner Loop towards Tysons; WTOP said something about a disabled vehicle. The I-95 HO/T lanes from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway to the Beltway were as heavy as I've ever seen them, perhaps due to the local slowdown (a lot of traffic exited there, and a lot exited at Turkeycock). I left my driveway at 6:36 and was at the 14th Street Bridge by 6:55 and parked in the garage at 11th & H by 7:01, doing 70 mph most of the way in until the approach to the Pentagon. There were very few left lane hogs, but that doesn't totally surprise me because the left northbound lane is the one closest to the jersey wall that was constructed on what used to be the shoulder. If it's like the I-95 HO/T lanes, that lane is less smooth than the other ones. I only briefly used it to pass someone whose speed was erratic.
The road itself was in the best shape it's been in years and they even have nice reflectors for the lane markings, which is something I've long wished were more common in Virginia. From home to I-95 it was very hard to see the lane markings due to the lack of reflectors.
Toll for the I-395 lanes when I hit Turkeycock at around 6:47-ish (just after the WTOP sports report ended) was $8.10 from Turkeycock to DC; the toll for the final segment if you entered via Ramp G near Pentagon City was $1.80. Rate signs list three destinations/amounts: "WA BLVD," "PENTAGON," and "WASH DC." I don't remember what the first two rates were other than that I noticed that from Shirlington to DC was $5.75 when I passed there.
Striping near the Pentagon seemed much improved. Southbound there used to be a warning sign saying "MAINTAIN TWO LANES," but the striping ended and people just drove whichever way they wanted to make their own lanes. The striping is now configured so the far left lane when the lanes are inbound has a solid line–it becomes exit-only to the Pentagon–and then the other lane that would be a southbound lane coming from the bridge has a short skip line at the spot where the reversible roadway begins/ends. I believe I noted that the other two lanes that head to the bridge and to the old "Pentagon" exit (it's now marked "Pentagon City") have a solid line until you pass the exit.
New signs:
–There used to be white signs near Edsall warning that the HO/T lanes ended and the HOV lanes began. Those are obviously gone. Instead, they have a Big White Sign warning that the HO/T lane exit for Seminary Road has an HOV-3 restriction 24/7 and another sign next to it saying non-HOVs should use the flyover at Turkeycock back to the local lanes to access Seminary. (There is a plan to remove the HOV restriction at Seminary.) This is all a big improvement because previously the only sign warning of the 24/7 HOV restriction was a tiny white sign you didn't see until you'd already started to exit, and even then it had minuscule print and was hard to read.
–Lots of new signage approaching the Pentagon, obviously. The BGS over the left lane for the Pentagon exit has flashing yellow lights to help draw attention to it, probably to emphasize that it's exit-only and you can't go to the bridge.
–There seemed to be fewer signs advising of the left exit for Route 27 to Memorial Bridge, but it could just be that I was more interested in seeing the new signs and didn't notice the ones for the exit that was already there. The old BGS that used a control "city" of "14th Street Br" is gone. The green surface on that sign had been peeling for several years and it needed replacement anyway.
–The VMSs starting at King Street were warning of "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD" and alternating that with "REDUCE SPEED." Interestingly, as you approach the southbound flyover ramp to Ridge Road, there are two Little White Signs that say "REDUCE SPEED AHEAD" ("Reduce," not "Reduced"), rather than the newer signs that tell you what the speed limit will be. I guess they did it that way because the HO/T lanes have a variable speed limit (it was set at 65 mph this morning).
I didn't take any pictures. Too dark, plus the rain, plus the most interesting parts are near the Pentagon and I wanted both hands on the wheel there. My dashcam is broken, so I won't have video captures.
Edited to add: Now I'm really glad I drove–the Pentagon Metro station just flooded, apparently due to a water main break! Trains are still running....for the moment. Something about flooding in a place where the third rail carries 750 volts AC is not encouraging!
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2019, 08:02:26 AM
Toll for the I-395 lanes when I hit Turkeycock at around 6:47-ish (just after the WTOP sports report ended) was $8.10 from Turkeycock to DC; the toll for the final segment if you entered via Ramp G near Pentagon City was $1.80. Rate signs list three destinations/amounts: "WA BLVD," "PENTAGON," and "WASH DC." I don't remember what the first two rates were other than that I noticed that from Shirlington to DC was $5.75 when I passed there.
My Tuesday transactions have posted to my EZPass account, it takes about 4 days for them to review and verify the transactions, apparently, for the HOT lanes on I-95 and I-495. They summarize an I-395 and I-95 trip into one entry.
Entry
11/19/2019 9:51:02 AM 95 395 EXPRESS LANES -9.25 (I-95 Garrisonville to I-495)
11/19/2019 7:57:03 PM 95 395 EXPRESS LANES -13.75 (I-395 & I-95 Eads St. to Garrisonville)
These were beyond the peak hour period, but while not congested the GP lanes had heavy enough traffic that I was fine with paying the toll for express lanes. As I said before the express lanes were still in the 20% to 30% of capacity usage range.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2019, 08:02:26 AM
The road itself was in the best shape it's been in years and they even have nice reflectors for the lane markings, which is something I've long wished were more common in Virginia. From home to I-95 it was very hard to see the lane markings due to the lack of reflectors.
I can agree. Even here in Hampton Roads, when it rains, it's a free for all on the interstate, even better when you got 4-5 lanes moving in one direction. Barely any visible reflectors, and with a lot of the highways having concrete, it makes visibility worse.
The City of Chesapeake recently repaved a stretch of VA-168, and put nice bright reflectors on the lanes and shoulders. Very easy to see during rain and when dark. The "toll road" (only part of it is actually tolled) section from Hanbury Rd southward was repaved in two phases in 2012 and 2016, and it also has visible reflectors. The remaining parts that haven't been repaved in over a decade have poor visibility. The US-17 upgrade also has visible reflectors on its stretch between I-64 and US-17 relocated.
Wish VDOT could do this more, Hampton Roads, and statewide it seems, and wish the city would repave the remainder of the expressway. It doesn't even have to be a repave, just some simple reflectors.
We used the I-395 HO/T lanes on the way home last night. My wife's car was at the Springfield Metro, so it made sense to use them south of Turkeycock anyway for access to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway.
–We used 14th Street because the Ninth Street Tunnel is usually a mess after games. There's a new BGS for the left-side ramp to the "HOV bridge." It has the purple E-ZPass Express banner and says "TO [I-395 shield] SOUTH/EXPRESS LANES" with an exit-only panel beneath. A portable VMS warned that all users need E-ZPass.
–On the bridge, the sign for the slip ramp prior to US-1 had a "Last Exit Before Toll" panel. That's actually wrong because you can use the next exit without a toll–it's the one whose BGS used to say simply "Pentagon" and now says "EXPRESS EXIT/Eads Street/Pentagon." There are two black-on-white signs with all-caps text that says there is no toll for anyone using that exit (I don't recall the precise wording).
–Toll rate signs on the bridge and prior to Eads Street list "SHIRLING" (Shirlington), "SEMINA" (Seminary Road), and "I-395-95" (Turkeycock)–the three exits from the I-395 lanes. Last night at around 10 PM the toll was the same to all three, $1.50.
–Much better lane-striping where the two carriageways merge just after the onramp from the Pentagon. Huge improvement. It's now very clear where the lanes go.
–A car was coming from the newly-reversible ramp that used to be the northbound exit to the Pentagon. It was disorienting and mildly disconcerting to see headlights coming from there–after all, for over 40 years you would not see anyone coming that way because that side was northbound-only. This sort of thing will just be a case of getting used to the new traffic pattern.
–The southbound right lane is quite close to the jersey wall and is not quite as smooth as the other two lanes. Not many people were in that lane and I too opted for the middle lane. I did notice how there are lots of reflectors on the wall.
–There's a sign on the south side ramp at Seminary that says tolling begins after the next exit. That's no longer correct–there's a toll gantry as you pass Landmark Mall. I guess they forgot to remove the sign. I'll tweet them about it.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 28, 2019, 12:07:29 PM
–The southbound right lane is quite close to the jersey wall and is not quite as smooth as the other two lanes. Not many people were in that lane and I too opted for the middle lane. I did notice how there are lots of reflectors on the wall.
That's likely a case of restriping a two-lane carriageway with 12 foot lanes and 10 foot shoulders on either side to likely a 1 or 2 foot right shoulder SB, three 11 foot lanes and a 10 foot right shoulder, and not strengthening the former left shoulder to be a lane.
Does I-95 have a similar situation, or was that fixed when they restriped that?
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2019, 12:31:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 28, 2019, 12:07:29 PM
–The southbound right lane is quite close to the jersey wall and is not quite as smooth as the other two lanes. Not many people were in that lane and I too opted for the middle lane. I did notice how there are lots of reflectors on the wall.
That's likely a case of restriping a two-lane carriageway with 12 foot lanes and 10 foot shoulders on either side to likely a 1 or 2 foot right shoulder SB, three 11 foot lanes and a 10 foot right shoulder, and not strengthening the former left shoulder to be a lane.
Not sure if that means that a couple feet of shoulder was unstrengthened and is now part of a traffic lane?
"Strengthening a shoulder" would be performed by removing the shoulder pavement and subbase and excavating to the depth needed to place full depth subbase and pavement to the same design as a traffic lane. Shoulder pavement design is much thinner and cannot be used as a traffic lane.
If they only needed 1 to 3 feet of widening of the pavement, they would have performed what VDOT has called "trench widening," basically using the same remove and replace process as in my second paragraph but a narrow strip in terms of width.
I rode the northbound I-395 HOT lanes this morning and will have a full report later.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2019, 07:30:31 PM
Not sure if that means that a couple feet of shoulder was unstrengthened and is now part of a traffic lane?
"Strengthening a shoulder" would be performed by removing the shoulder pavement and subbase and excavating to the depth needed to place full depth subbase and pavement to the same design as a traffic lane.
If they only needed 1 to 3 feet of widening, of the pavement they would have performed what VDOT has called "trench widening," basically using the same remove and replace process as in my second paragraph but a narrow strip. Shoulder design is much thinner and cannot be used as a traffic lane.
I rode the northbound I-395 HOT lanes this morning and will have a full report later.
Basically, from what 1995hoo described, the right lane heading southbound (the added 3rd lane) is located where the full 10 right shoulder previously was when it was only two lanes with full shoulders on both sides. When they restriped the lanes by narrowing the lanes to 11 foot and eliminating the full shoulder (to the right when heading southbound) in order to squeeze the 3 lanes and a full shoulder on one side into the ~45 ft of roadway, if that new lane is not as smooth as the others, my guess is that the previous shoulder was not full depth since it was not a travel lane, and when they striped it as a travel lane, it was never made full depth. Now that traffic is using it as a full-time lane, it's probably wearing down quicker since it's not as strengthened as the other lanes.
The on-going and previous widening projects on I-64 in Hampton Roads and the Peninsula involved strengthening the shoulders to handle traffic moving on them before they shifted the lanes. It seems the previous shoulder, now a travel lane on I-395 was not strengthened. It's about 10-11 feet that would need to be strengthened on the HO/T lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2019, 07:39:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2019, 07:30:31 PM
"Strengthening a shoulder" would be performed by removing the shoulder pavement and subbase and excavating to the depth needed to place full depth subbase and pavement to the same design as a traffic lane.
Basically, from what 1995hoo described, the right lane heading southbound (the added 3rd lane) is located where the full 10 right shoulder previously was when it was only two lanes with full shoulders on both sides. When they restriped the lanes by narrowing the lanes to 11 foot and eliminating the full shoulder (to the right when heading southbound) in order to squeeze the 3 lanes and a full shoulder on one side into the ~45 ft of roadway, if that new lane is not as smooth as the others, my guess is that the previous shoulder was not full depth since it was not a travel lane, and when they striped it as a travel lane, it was never made full depth.
I can't imagine that they would do that, because within a couple years it would begin to crumble and settle. No trucks there but buses have high axle loadings and would damage such pavement.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2019, 07:39:07 PM
Now that traffic is using it as a full-time lane, it's probably wearing down quicker since it's not as strengthened as the other lanes.
He said that it "is not quite as smooth as the other two lanes." I didn't notice this when I drove it, but the trench widening seam could account for that, even though surface courses would overlay the widened base courses.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2019, 07:39:07 PM
The on-going and previous widening projects on I-64 in Hampton Roads and the Peninsula involved strengthening the shoulders to handle traffic moving on them before they shifted the lanes.
Temporary usage, six months or whatever. Probably a normal shoulder could handle that; I would have to see the design plans.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2019, 07:50:35 PM
Temporary usage, six months or whatever. Probably a normal shoulder could handle that; I would have to see the design plans.
Segment 1 (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P12-HRTAC_Projects_Schedules_and_Updates.pdf) -
QuoteOutside Shoulder Strengthening Construction to start September 2015
Segment 2 (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-Widening-Project-October-Update-.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=CVTAq5PbQ84) -
QuoteInitial work will include shoulder strengthening beginning in the eastbound direction for approximately two weeks, followed by similar work in the westbound direction.
Segment 3 (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2018/construction_to_begin_on132745.asp) -
QuoteInitial work will include shoulder strengthening operations beginning in the westbound direction, followed by similar work in the eastbound direction.
High Rise Bridge corridor (VA-168 Business to I-664) (https://64highrise.org/stay_informed/asset_upload_file362_126484.pdf) -
QuoteUpcoming Traffic Shift for shoulder strengthening
Here's an interesting find (https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/APD_Docs/SOQ/106695_-_SOQ_-_SAW2JV.pdf). So the shoulder strengthening not only allowed traffic to utilize the shoulder during construction, it was also done as a "stealth" lane for future use, at least in this particular segment between Fort Eustis Blvd and Jefferson Ave.
QuoteDuring design, VDOT issued a contract modification to strengthen the outside shoulders between the Fort Eustis Boulevard Interchange and the eastern project limit to allow operation of a 4th thru lane in each direction in the future. Shoulder strengthening was incorporated by removal of the existing shoulder pavement and partial subbase removal, and replacement with a full-depth pavement section
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2019, 08:08:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2019, 07:50:35 PM
Temporary usage, six months or whatever. Probably a normal shoulder could handle that; I would have to see the design plans.
Segment 1 (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P12-HRTAC_Projects_Schedules_and_Updates.pdf) -
QuoteOutside Shoulder Strengthening Construction to start September 2015
Here's an interesting find (https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/APD_Docs/SOQ/106695_-_SOQ_-_SAW2JV.pdf). So the shoulder strengthening not only allowed traffic to utilize the shoulder during construction, it was also done as a "stealth" lane for future use, at least in this particular segment between Fort Eustis Blvd and Jefferson Ave.
QuoteDuring design, VDOT issued a contract modification to strengthen the outside shoulders between the Fort Eustis Boulevard Interchange and the eastern project limit to allow operation of a 4th thru lane in each direction in the future. Shoulder strengthening was incorporated by removal of the existing shoulder pavement and partial subbase removal, and replacement with a full-depth pavement section
"Shoulder strengthening" sounds like a term created by the public affairs office.
The design engineers would design what your last sentence said, remove and replace to a full-depth pavement section.
Again, I would have to look at the particular design plans, to see exactly what pavement design they are using for the temporary traffic usage on the newly constructed shoulder.
Stealth future lanes are something that I have pointed out in the past.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2019, 08:18:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2019, 08:08:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2019, 07:50:35 PM
Temporary usage, six months or whatever. Probably a normal shoulder could handle that; I would have to see the design plans.
Segment 1 (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P12-HRTAC_Projects_Schedules_and_Updates.pdf) -
QuoteOutside Shoulder Strengthening Construction to start September 2015
Here's an interesting find (https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/APD_Docs/SOQ/106695_-_SOQ_-_SAW2JV.pdf). So the shoulder strengthening not only allowed traffic to utilize the shoulder during construction, it was also done as a "stealth" lane for future use, at least in this particular segment between Fort Eustis Blvd and Jefferson Ave.
QuoteDuring design, VDOT issued a contract modification to strengthen the outside shoulders between the Fort Eustis Boulevard Interchange and the eastern project limit to allow operation of a 4th thru lane in each direction in the future. Shoulder strengthening was incorporated by removal of the existing shoulder pavement and partial subbase removal, and replacement with a full-depth pavement section
"Shoulder strengthening" sounds like a term created by the public affairs office.
The design engineers would design what your last sentence said, remove and replace to a full-depth pavement section.
Again, I would have to look at the particular design plans, to see exactly what pavement design they are using for the temporary traffic usage on the newly constructed shoulder.
Stealth future lanes are something that I have pointed out in the past.
These are the only design plans per se I can find for Segment 2 from a public hearing back in 2015.
http://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/resources/hampton_roads/Plan%20and%20Profile%20Sheets.pdf
VDOT doesn't do a good job of making all of this publicly available as far as I'm aware of.
Something like this (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/) would be nice to have, a public database of all the project lettings and associated design plans such as pavement, utility, signage, structures, subsurface, roadway, etc. would be useful to have, as far as I know none exists.
Example from the upcoming I-73 Rockingham Bypass project (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/10-15-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/R-3421A_B%20Richmond_Montgomery_34446.3.4_C204368/R-3421B/Standard%20PDF%20Files/).
I drove the I-395 HOT lanes northbound today (Thanksgiving) morning entering about 9:20 am. Entered them as part of the continuous I-95/I-395 express roadway, got on the I-95 HOT lanes at Garrisonville.
I went thru D.C. using I-395, I-695, DC-295 Kenilworth Avenue (freeway), and US-50 freeway to the Eastern Shore.
Very fine trip and newly widened and paved 3-lane express roadway on I-395 to where it divides near the Pentagon and crosses the middle 14th Street Bridge. 65 mph speed limit and drops just before the 14th Street Bridge.
Updated my spreadsheet for
http://www.capital-beltway.com/VA-Freeway-Widening-Projects.xlsm
(389 miles completed, 62 miles under construction)
The toll was $2.00 on I-395, starting near I-495.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-1.JPG&hash=d431f0bb9c3b2718e045b196ec6e99ae0db2406f)
Thanksgiving day, light traffic on I-395 in morning, low toll.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-2.JPG&hash=14265c4d489ff17f200340bbeb2904f2ccb076cb)
Turkeycock Interchange area.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-3.JPG&hash=c1c3c008e4225ef9dc5485e2aa94c39765aba233)
Popular vantage point for Shirley Highway photo, the sag vertical curve between Duke Street and Seminary Road.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-4.JPG&hash=10496e7d0b92fa637f76c82eca3484032730e5ae)
New ramp between express lanes and Seminary Road.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-5.JPG&hash=8df515d9de78c0ce2be152bb12a64239a6380a1a)
King Street interchange area.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-6.JPG&hash=9b01c16ce30f1df30acd370a7e03e3a005d90294)
Shirlington interchange area.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-7.JPG&hash=6f8e959c2b418abda25e41fd8d1fad5157f72230)
Between Glebe Road and Mixing Bowl (the real Mixing Bowl!)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-8.JPG&hash=e2f2c82a9c2657868e10e6bdfc4d09bb75ac38d4)
Toll on VMS for general purpose lanes to express 14th Street Bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-9.JPG&hash=4e7a73b3d205b43ba0dc27a178fd932986d37701)
Approaching 14th Street Bridge, which passes over the Potomac River.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI-395-NB-HOT-10.JPG&hash=edfb5126c5175fbadc16e4161ccee16ed8aa7afe)
On 14th Street Bridge. Left lane exits onto 14th Street northbound, right lane exits onto GP lanes of DC I-395 Southwest Freeway.
Light traffic on morning of Thanksgiving!
^
I don't think I've seen Transurban tolls that low before!
Looks like a nice result overall. Definitally a narrow shoulder on that one side, probably no larger than 2 ft.
Back to that shoulder issue...was there a rumble strip there? Unless the pavement was completely milled and repaved, a minor repaving usually causes people to still feel the vibration.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 28, 2019, 09:31:26 PM
Back to that shoulder issue...was there a rumble strip there? Unless the pavement was completely milled and repaved, a minor repaving usually causes people to still feel the vibration.
Doesn't appear to be, but it looks like a road surface that's seen better days -
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8409615,-77.0846137,3a,75y,236.59h,80.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSOV38XZbeBkudiQG_YpFMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That ramp to Seminary isn't "new" in that it wasn't built as part of the HO/T project, though it's fair to view it as "new" relative to most of I-395. It was built in 2014 and opened in early 2015 after that Defense Department office building went up at the Mark Center (southwest corner of the Seminary Road interchange) and there were a lot of complaints about the ramp not being built before the building opened.
That ramp carries an HOV-3 restriction at all times. I don't know whether they require E-ZPass Flex to use it–after all, you can use the lanes with three people and still pay the toll if you don't have a Flex, such as if you're here on a business trip. I didn't see any signs saying a Flex is required to use that ramp.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2019, 08:39:07 AM
That ramp to Seminary isn't "new" in that it wasn't built as part of the HO/T project, though it's fair to view it as "new" relative to most of I-395. It was built in 2014 and opened in early 2015 after that Defense Department office building went up at the Mark Center (southwest corner of the Seminary Road interchange) and there were a lot of complaints about the ramp not being built before the building opened.
I didn't mean "new" in the sense of just opened, just that it was recently completed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2019, 08:39:07 AM
That ramp carries an HOV-3 restriction at all times. I don't know whether they require E-ZPass Flex to use it–after all, you can use the lanes with three people and still pay the toll if you don't have a Flex, such as if you're here on a business trip. I didn't see any signs saying a Flex is required to use that ramp.
A question was raised when I posted the sag curve photo that shows "HOV EXIT," in another highways forum, and he said, "Shouldn't that Seminary Road sign say 'Express Exit'?"
"All existing I-395 HOV entry and exit points are now 395 Express Lanes entry and exit points, except for the Seminary Road ramp that faces south, which is still HOV-only."
[That was built to serve the Mark Center]
https://www.expresslanes.com/395
. . . . . .
Wonder why they didn't make it HOT like the others? The ramp doesn't connect directly to the Mark Center, it has an intersection with Seminary Road on its overpass bridge over I-395. That wouldn't seem to cause any traffic problem, but then again it might, if there are high volumes of HOV-3+ vehicles using the ramp in peak hours.
I read somewhere that the 24/7 HOV restriction on that ramp was intended to discourage solo commuting to the Mark Center. I don't know any details, though. If that was the thought process, though, I guess it'd presumably remain valid even after HO/T conversion.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2019, 01:40:30 PM
I read somewhere that the 24/7 HOV restriction on that ramp was intended to discourage solo commuting to the Mark Center. I don't know any details, though. If that was the thought process, though, I guess it'd presumably remain valid even after HO/T conversion.
Since it is the only one not converted from HOV to HOT, we can conclude that there was some local issue at work here.
For example, the Pentagon is a much bigger traffic generator, but it is in an area zoned for government and commercial development; while the Mark Center was built in an area that is generally residential. Eads Street also provides direct access to the Pentagon parking lots.
Plus the Pentagon literally has a metro station beneath it
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 29, 2019, 04:06:56 PM
Plus the Pentagon literally has a metro station beneath it
Transit bus station on top of the Metro station.
The Metro station isn't actually underneath the Pentagon building. It's underneath the bus lanes outside. There used to be a direct entrance up into the building from the subway station, but that was sealed off years ago as a security risk.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2019, 06:19:45 PM
The Metro station isn't actually underneath the Pentagon building. It's underneath the bus lanes outside. There used to be a direct entrance up into the building from the subway station, but that was sealed off years ago as a security risk.
Parallel to the bus platforms, parallel to the southeast wall of the Pentagon.
Under the green-grassed area that has what look like two small brown squares.
https://www.google.com/maps/search/arlington+va/@38.8691986,-77.0539969,350m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: Beltway on November 29, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2019, 01:40:30 PM
I read somewhere that the 24/7 HOV restriction on that ramp was intended to discourage solo commuting to the Mark Center. I don't know any details, though. If that was the thought process, though, I guess it'd presumably remain valid even after HO/T conversion.
Since it is the only one not converted from HOV to HOT, we can conclude that there was some local issue at work here.
It's part of the TMP (Transportation Management Plan) for the Mark Center development.
Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2019, 10:14:47 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 29, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2019, 01:40:30 PM
I read somewhere that the 24/7 HOV restriction on that ramp was intended to discourage solo commuting to the Mark Center. I don't know any details, though. If that was the thought process, though, I guess it'd presumably remain valid even after HO/T conversion.
Since it is the only one not converted from HOV to HOT, we can conclude that there was some local issue at work here.
It's part of the TMP (Transportation Management Plan) for the Mark Center development.
I just spent about 10 minutes looking at various BRAC-133 documents and FHWA and VDOT documents, about Mark Center access, and there is good information but I can't yet pin down the exact official decision point.
One document said that the City of Alexandria wanted to prohibit easterly access to the ramp in peak hours, but that FHWA refused. It is apparent enough that enhanced direct transit southerly access to the Mark Center was the goal of the new ramp, that would include car pools and buses, but limiting other uses given the otherwise residential land uses in the immediate area.
Non-HOV traffic does have access to Seminary Road to/from the southerly express lanes, but thru the Turkeycock Interchange which entails about 1/2 mile of GP lane usage.
Allowing general-purpose use of that ramp does present traffic management problems on Seminary Road. The way it is now, thru traffic going over the top-level overpass on Seminary (heading towards Beauregard Street and Skyline) is forced into a left-turn-only lane onto Beauregard heading towards Landmark. You have to move right just as you come off that overpass as you pass the entrance to Southern Towers. At the same spot, traffic coming off I-395's general-purpose lanes is trying to move left to turn left onto Beauregard to access the Mark Center or other locations down the road there. There have been some discussions of rebuilding the Seminary/Beauregard intersection to eliminate this weaving problem, but until they do that, I won't be surprised if they do not move quickly on allowing non-HOVs to use that ramp, especially during rush hour.
It's days like this I question the reversible schedule...
I-95 southbound between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg, 30 miles, 90 minutes travel time, roughly 60 minutes of delay.
I-95 northbound between Fredericksburg and Woodbridge, 30 miles, 40 minutes travel time, roughly 10 minutes of delay.
And yet the Express Lanes are pointed northbound.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 12:33:33 PM
It's days like this I question the reversible schedule...
I-95 southbound between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg, 30 miles, 90 minutes travel time, roughly 60 minutes of delay.
I-95 northbound between Fredericksburg and Woodbridge, 30 miles, 40 minutes travel time, roughly 10 minutes of delay.
And yet the Express Lanes are pointed northbound.
Okay, well, what if they were pointed southbound? You think those would be more or less imbalanced the opposite way? The only way to know which way is worse is to close them entirely. I would expect NB to be the hotter direction.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 12:33:33 PM
It's days like this I question the reversible schedule...
I-95 southbound between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg, 30 miles, 90 minutes travel time, roughly 60 minutes of delay.
I-95 northbound between Fredericksburg and Woodbridge, 30 miles, 40 minutes travel time, roughly 10 minutes of delay.
And yet the Express Lanes are pointed northbound.
Well, of course the delay going north should be less because they have 3 extra lanes to use.
I'm sure they have years of data to know what direction has more traffic on Sunday after Thanksgiving.
With the toll as low as it is, only $8 for 30 miles (for Transurban that's low), that indicates there's not high demand for the HO/T lanes. Also keep in mind, there's a 6 mile section between Fredericksburg and the southern terminus of the HO/T lanes, and that stretch of northbound is operating adequately. Southbound in the same corridor has severe congestion.
It's pretty easy to watch the traffic cameras in 3-5 minute increments multiple times and easily realize there's more demand southbound than northbound. All the traffic northbound is spread apart decently amount to the point there would likely be some delay if 2 lanes (the NB HO/T lanes) were closed, but certainly not as much as southbound.
Of course if they had built it the right way, there would be two HO/T lanes in each direction, but that's a different story.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 02:40:39 PM
It's pretty easy to watch the traffic cameras in 3-5 minute increments multiple times and easily realize there's more demand southbound than northbound.
That is the problem with eyeball analysis, and not even while on the highway.
The historical traffic engineering analysis has been that on the last day of a major holiday weekend, that the net flow heavily favors the direction -toward- Washington, as in the net flow being the number of people returning to homes in the area; and that is why the express lanes are oriented that way all day long, and not just for half of the day.
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 02:53:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 02:40:39 PM
It's pretty easy to watch the traffic cameras in 3-5 minute increments multiple times and easily realize there's more demand southbound than northbound.
That is the problem with eyeball analysis, and not even while on the highway.
The historical traffic engineering analysis has been that on the last day of a major holiday weekend, that the net flow heavily favors the direction -toward- Washington, as in the net flow being the number of people returning to homes in the area; and that is why the express lanes are oriented that way all day long, and not just for half of the day.
That's the problem with having reversible HO/T lanes on a highway that has congestion issues in both directions.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 02:53:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 02:40:39 PM
It's pretty easy to watch the traffic cameras in 3-5 minute increments multiple times and easily realize there's more demand southbound than northbound.
That is the problem with eyeball analysis, and not even while on the highway.
The historical traffic engineering analysis has been that on the last day of a major holiday weekend, that the net flow heavily favors the direction -toward- Washington, as in the net flow being the number of people returning to homes in the area; and that is why the express lanes are oriented that way all day long, and not just for half of the day.
That's the problem with having reversible HO/T lanes on a highway that has congestion issues in both directions.
That is a different problem and one I agree with.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 02:53:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 02:40:39 PM
It's pretty easy to watch the traffic cameras in 3-5 minute increments multiple times and easily realize there's more demand southbound than northbound.
That is the problem with eyeball analysis, and not even while on the highway.
The historical traffic engineering analysis has been that on the last day of a major holiday weekend, that the net flow heavily favors the direction -toward- Washington, as in the net flow being the number of people returning to homes in the area; and that is why the express lanes are oriented that way all day long, and not just for half of the day.
That's the problem with having reversible HO/T lanes on a highway that has congestion issues in both directions.
The reversible lanes have nothing to do with it.
The pattern above has been observed by me (and traffic engineers) since the 1970s when I first drove in the area, and there were no reversible lanes south of Springfield then. Heavy directional split all day long -toward- Washington on the Sunday after Thanksgiving and on the last day of a major holiday weekend.
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 08:24:51 PM
The reversible lanes have nothing to do with it.
The pattern above has been observed by me (and traffic engineers) since the 1970s when I first drove in the area, and there were no reversible lanes south of Springfield then. Heavy directional split all day long -toward- Washington on the Sunday after Thanksgiving and on the last day of a major holiday weekend.
You're missing the point.
There was major congestion southbound today, and there were no HO/T lanes available for traffic to assist them. This "heavy" traffic flow northbound had the assistance of the HO/T lanes to ease traffic across all lanes and were able to have low, reasonable toll rates thruout most of the day and minimal congestion.
If they had two HO/T lanes in -both- directions, there likely would have been significantly less southbound congestion as well. That's a consequence of Transurban and VDOT's incompetence. Also, having only 3 lanes in one direction doesn't help things either.
This is something that actually applies to pretty much every Sunday thruout the year. There's always heavy congestion southbound, and minimal northbound due to the assistance of the HO/T lanes. If they had 2 HO/T lanes in -both- directions, there likely would have been significantly less southbound congestion as well. That's a consequence of Transurban and VDOT's incompetence. Also, having only 3 lanes in one direction doesn't help things either.
And don't give me this whole rinse-and-repeat about how Woodbridge <-> Springfield is already "fully built out". Back in the early 2000s when VDOT had been planning these HOV / HO/T extensions and designing the Springfield Interchange, the entire corridor between Woodbridge <-> Springfield could have reconstructed to have a setup similar to I-495 (4 + 2 each way) with the GP and HO/T lanes being divided by a 4 foot buffer, which would adequately fit in the corridor, and the Springfield Interchange could've been designed to accommodate a bi-directional setup. If there was more right of way issues, or there was absolutely 3 HO/T needed each way, then you could reduce the shoulder to 4 feet. That's not a foreign concept in HO/T lanes, especially when you have more than one each way. It's been done in other places around the country, and is even being done in Hampton Roads on the HRBT expansion. Also, if you reduced the lane sizes to 11 feet, which they are on the existing reversible, that's even more room. Again, it was VDOT's incompetence that failed to consider this, and it's now coming back to them. They did I-495 right, they're doing I-66 Outside the Beltway right, but they lacked with I-95, and continue to do so by continuing the "reversible" design on new extensions.
They could have done their job like the I15 lanes in San Diego, 4 lanes with a center moveable zipper that give 3 hovering in the heavy direction, and one in the low direction or 2/2.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 10:51:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 08:24:51 PM
The reversible lanes have nothing to do with it.
The pattern above has been observed by me (and traffic engineers) since the 1970s when I first drove in the area, and there were no reversible lanes south of Springfield then. Heavy directional split all day long -toward- Washington on the Sunday after Thanksgiving and on the last day of a major holiday weekend.
You're missing the point.
There was major congestion southbound today, and there were no HO/T lanes available for traffic to assist them.
<<< big snip >>>
You're said this ad nauseum and with minor variations. You know yourself that the moderators aren't going to put up with seeing another long argument where we go back and forth.
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 11:42:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 10:51:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 08:24:51 PM
The reversible lanes have nothing to do with it.
The pattern above has been observed by me (and traffic engineers) since the 1970s when I first drove in the area, and there were no reversible lanes south of Springfield then. Heavy directional split all day long -toward- Washington on the Sunday after Thanksgiving and on the last day of a major holiday weekend.
You're missing the point.
There was major congestion southbound today, and there were no HO/T lanes available for traffic to assist them.
<<< big snip >>>
You're said this ad nauseum and with minor variations. You know yourself that the moderators aren't going to put up with seeing another long argument where we go back and forth.
Simply pointing out a major flaw of VDOT and Transurban and responding to your assertion that the reversible lanes have nothing to do with it.
I'm not trying to start another long argument, just trying to put a fact out there. What is there to argue? Bi-directional would better serve traffic needs than a reversible one-way would. It's basic logic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 11:57:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 11:42:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 10:51:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 08:24:51 PM
The reversible lanes have nothing to do with it.
The pattern above has been observed by me (and traffic engineers) since the 1970s when I first drove in the area, and there were no reversible lanes south of Springfield then. Heavy directional split all day long -toward- Washington on the Sunday after Thanksgiving and on the last day of a major holiday weekend.
You're missing the point.
There was major congestion southbound today, and there were no HO/T lanes available for traffic to assist them.
<<< big snip >>>
You're said this ad nauseum and with minor variations. You know yourself that the moderators aren't going to put up with seeing another long argument where we go back and forth.
Simply pointing out a major flaw of VDOT and Transurban and responding to your assertion that the reversible lanes have nothing to do with it.
I'm not trying to start another long argument, just trying to put a fact out there. What is there to argue? Bi-directional would better serve traffic needs than a reversible one-way would. It's basic logic.
Personally, I agree...there should've been 2 lanes each way. But the right of way and available room just didn't exist where it was needed the most
That said...you don't design a highway for 1 day out of the entire year, or even 1 day every few months. To say it should've been 2 lanes each way just to make the Sunday after Thanksgiving less congested is a waste of money on everyone's part, and no engineering firm or money provider, be it the state, feds or private consortium, would put forth the effort for such a design to deal with traffic 1 day out of the year.
It's been said why northbound was less congested than southbound, and we've tried reasoning with you on such. At this point, you're simply not caring about the reasons.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2019, 01:31:41 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 11:57:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 11:42:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2019, 10:51:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2019, 08:24:51 PM
The reversible lanes have nothing to do with it.
The pattern above has been observed by me (and traffic engineers) since the 1970s when I first drove in the area, and there were no reversible lanes south of Springfield then. Heavy directional split all day long -toward- Washington on the Sunday after Thanksgiving and on the last day of a major holiday weekend.
You're missing the point.
There was major congestion southbound today, and there were no HO/T lanes available for traffic to assist them.
<<< big snip >>>
You're said this ad nauseum and with minor variations. You know yourself that the moderators aren't going to put up with seeing another long argument where we go back and forth.
Simply pointing out a major flaw of VDOT and Transurban and responding to your assertion that the reversible lanes have nothing to do with it.
I'm not trying to start another long argument, just trying to put a fact out there. What is there to argue? Bi-directional would better serve traffic needs than a reversible one-way would. It's basic logic.
Personally, I agree...there should've been 2 lanes each way. But the right of way and available room just didn't exist where it was needed the most
That said...you don't design a highway for 1 day out of the entire year, or even 1 day every few months. To say it should've been 2 lanes each way just to make the Sunday after Thanksgiving less congested is a waste of money on everyone's part, and no engineering firm or money provider, be it the state, feds or private consortium, would put forth the effort for such a design to deal with traffic 1 day out of the year.
It's been said why northbound was less congested than southbound, and we've tried reasoning with you on such. At this point, you're simply not caring about the reasons.
The bi-directional HO/T lane setup is needed every weekend when there's heavy traffic both ways but the HO/T lanes face northbound Sunday (congestion southbound), and southbound Saturday (congestion northbound, though to a lesser extent). Also, there's times during the week that congestion forms both ways, and of course as you mention on peak weekends and holidays. There's also times when the lanes are being reversed that no direction has access, and there could easily be congestion at any point then, and has before.
So it's not just "once a month" or "once a year" . If it's such a waste of money, then why are they investing on 2 HO/T lanes both directions on I-66 west of DC, even though it could probably be reversible for the weekday schedule? The stretch on I-95 is about 30 miles long, and 25 miles of that there's more than enough room, and for the northern most 5 miles, a design similar to I-495 would fit in the footprint or slightly over, without any major right of way impacts. It would have involved completely reconstructing the reversible lanes previously built, but in the long run, it's needed and still is needed. If anything, they could've built it bi-directional from the beginning instead of the reversible concept when it was HOV.
VDOT has put one solution on the table, which is running "shoulder HO/T lanes" , basically opening the left shoulder as a HO/T lane in the opposite direction of Transurban's lanes (can't be activated in the same direction due to compensation events). It's better than nothing, but it still would've been a better long-term build for 2 each way, and they had the opportunity when it was built to do it right, but they didn't.
As has been pointed out to you before (but you continue to ignore), it was pointless to build the HO/T lanes further south as bi-directional because you still have the right-of-way constraint through Newington and Springfield that prevents bi-directional lanes there. You'd have to go a few decades back to change that decision...back when the weekend traffic issue was a minimal (at worst) problem and the directional split was more pronounced...hence why they were built out as reversible in the 80s and 90s.
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2019, 09:10:57 AM
As has been pointed out to you before (but you continue to ignore), it was pointless to build the HO/T lanes further south as bi-directional because you still have the right-of-way constraint through Newington and Springfield that prevents bi-directional lanes there.
I've already pointed out you can have a design similar to I-495 that has a smaller footprint. With 3 lanes each way having a 4 foot buffer between the GP lanes and the HO/T lanes, and a 4 ft HO/T shoulder, it would be roughly 10-12 ft larger overall, and the interchanges could be redesigned to accommodate this. It'd be an expensive undertaking, but it would be able to handle current and future traffic demand, and needs to be done.
The HO/T lanes south of Woodbridge should've been at least designed to accommodate a parallel roadway, which is some areas where they are centered directly between the north and south carriageways, it's a tight / impossible squeeze without modifying the roadways once again.
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2019, 09:10:57 AM
You'd have to go a few decades back to change that decision...back when the weekend traffic issue was a minimal (at worst) problem and the directional split was more pronounced...hence why they were built out as reversible in the 80s and 90s.
I thought properly studied & built projects were supposed to be able to accommodate traffic volumes 20-30+ years into the future? They clearly weren't. Neither was I-95's 6-lane widening.
OK, so to prevent this from spreading outward:
* Ideally, those lanes would be bi-directional
* They can't be made bi-directional without ROW acquisition or compromising on design standards
Think I captured it. Good. Next topic.
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2019, 06:35:31 PM
OK, so to prevent this from spreading outward:
* Ideally, those lanes would be bi-directional
* They can't be made bi-directional without ROW acquisition or compromising on design standards
Expensive right-of-way acquisition and serious citizen/business opposition in places.
The express lanes are now 3 lanes wide for 25 miles. Making that or any part thereof bi-directional would involve providing another 3 lane roadway.
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2019, 06:35:31 PM
Think I captured it. Good. Next topic.
I agree fully!
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2019, 08:45:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2019, 06:35:31 PM
OK, so to prevent this from spreading outward:
* Ideally, those lanes would be bi-directional
* They can't be made bi-directional without ROW acquisition or compromising on design standards
Expensive right-of-way acquisition and serious citizen/business opposition in places.
The express lanes are now 3 lanes wide for 25 miles. Making that or any part thereof bi-directional would involve providing another 3 lane roadway.
You're referring to inside the beltway as well. I'm strictly talking about south of I-495, where a bi-directional can adequately fit in the corridor without serious right of way impacts, and that being the northern most few miles.
There is a more defined peak flow inside the beltway, and the current reversible can handle the peak flow without much congestion the opposite way.
Really the traffic problems were most defined beginning at VDOT's 4th lane drop down to Fredericksburg, none or minimal northwards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2019, 09:02:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2019, 08:45:58 PM
Expensive right-of-way acquisition and serious citizen/business opposition in places.
The express lanes are now 3 lanes wide for 25 miles. Making that or any part thereof bi-directional would involve providing another 3 lane roadway.
You're referring to inside the beltway as well. I'm strictly talking about south of I-495, where a bi-directional can adequately fit in the corridor without serious right of way impacts, and that being the northern most few miles.
Springfield and Newington is included in my comments.
It can be seen on Google Maps what the constraints are. It would probably require a considerable expansion to the Springfield Interchange as well, with associated major impacts to residential and business acquisitions.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2019, 09:16:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2019, 09:02:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2019, 08:45:58 PM
Expensive right-of-way acquisition and serious citizen/business opposition in places.
The express lanes are now 3 lanes wide for 25 miles. Making that or any part thereof bi-directional would involve providing another 3 lane roadway.
You're referring to inside the beltway as well. I'm strictly talking about south of I-495, where a bi-directional can adequately fit in the corridor without serious right of way impacts, and that being the northern most few miles.
Springfield and Newington is included in my comments.
It can be seen on Google Maps what the constraints are. It would probably require a considerable expansion to the Springfield Interchange as well, with associated major impacts to residential and business acquisitions.
A 3 mile stretch.
If right of way constraints are a "major issue" , then build an elevated viaduct. That's not a foreign concept, and has been done in other areas around the country with HO/T and HOV lanes where right of way is a constraint. California has done it, Texas has at least a dozen miles of elevated HOV lanes planned, just to make a couple of examples.
Is Virginia just going to sit back and allow the I-95 corridor to worsen and worsen as each year goes by? As it stands right now, I-95 is currently designed for the traffic needs of 30 years ago. The state can't just remain static and site right of way, compensation events, and others as excuses. I-66 is getting massively overhauled (and there's right of way impacts on that too), I-495 got overhauled, and is continuing to get overhauled in the next few years to Maryland (again, right of way impacts), it's not impossible nor infeasible.
What is your proposal for Virginia to improve the I-95 corridor and to be able to carry more capacity?
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2019, 09:36:27 PM
What is your proposal for Virginia to improve the I-95 corridor and to be able to carry more capacity?
Fairfax County is fully built out at 4-3-4 and that should be considered the final design. The express lanes also carry van pools and transit buses and they carry over twice the ridership as the GP lanes, and can carry far more van pools and buses. Full build out south of there would be to 4 GP lanes each way.
There needs to be an I-97 eastern bypass of Washington and an I-470 western bypass of Washington, at least one of them needs to be studied and pursued immediately. The malfeasance and nonfeasance of the Maryland state and associated county governments needs to cease.
The parallel Potomac River railroad bridge will be a game-changer for commuter peaks, as it will allow possibly 10 more trains per hour to each of the Manassas and Fredericksburg VRE lines.
Nothing too special here, just a picture I took this afternoon showing the Beltway through Tysons (runs through the center with south at the top). The Dulles Access and Toll Roads run across the photo and Route 123 runs diagonally from where the wing hits the photo's left edge.
I find the HO/T overpasses above the Dulles Access and Toll Roads to be an interesting layout when seen from above. You can also see the newly-extended Jones Branch/Scott's Crossing roadway just south of that.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191204/4bb9fb264c587bf7c369f64ba706fc38.jpg)
Well, there will be a meeting about the conversion of the HOV ramp at Seminary Road to a HOT ramp on December 9.
Article: https://patch.com/virginia/delray/meeting-i-395-hov-ramp-planned-alexandria
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 03, 2019, 10:23:40 PM
I find the HO/T overpasses above the Dulles Access and Toll Roads to be an interesting layout when seen from above. You can also see the newly-extended Jones Branch/Scott's Crossing roadway just south of that.
Is it open to traffic yet?
That will provide a major improvement in local connectivity.
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2019, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 03, 2019, 10:23:40 PM
I find the HO/T overpasses above the Dulles Access and Toll Roads to be an interesting layout when seen from above. You can also see the newly-extended Jones Branch/Scott's Crossing roadway just south of that.
Is it open to traffic yet?
That will provide a major improvement in local connectivity.
I believe it's at least partially open, at least one lane each way. Don't know if it's completed.
Is this a normal day on I-95 nowadays? I don't think I've ever seen the tolls so high. There doesn't appear to be any events that would cause higher congestion, and traffic seems relatively usual for I-95.
The current price for a trip between I-495 and Stafford on the I-95 Express Lanes, approximately 27 miles. Google estimates about 53 minutes for a general purpose trip, which, again doesn't seem unusual. I've seen tolls in the low $30s, but never above that.
(https://i.ibb.co/LhRHB1w/4245-I95-HOT.png)
A trip between Tysons Corner and Stafford via the I-495 Express Lanes and I-95 Express Lanes is estimated at $68.35 for a distance of approximately 38 miles. Google estimates about 66 minutes for a general purpose trip.
A trip between Washington D.C. and Stafford via the I-395 Express Lanes and I-95 Express Lanes is estimated at $55.05 for a distance of approximately 35 miles. Google estimates about 77 minutes for a general purpose trip.
I never expected I-495 to have a higher toll than the reversible segment, especially when travel times in the general purpose lanes are quicker on that road as opposed to I-395.
Did you drive it or did you get that online?
I would need to see a price profile by minute and then know of any incidents and their severity, before I could make an evaluation.
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 05:18:59 PM
Did you drive it or did you get that online?
I would need to see a price profile by minute and then know of any incidents and their severity, before I could make an evaluation.
Online via Transurban's toll calculator.
VDOT's https://www.511virginia.org/ online VMS signage also added up to that amount at the time based on entry / exit points.
Right now, the toll is estimated by Transurban at a lower (but still quite high) $33.05
between I-495 and Stafford.
VDOT's VMS signage reads the following -
I-395 South / Springfield - 95-DALE $11.55
I-95 South / Woodbridge - 95 - 610 $19.75
That adds up to $31.30. Not quite what Transurban estimates, but very close. I didn't save the numbers when their online toll calculator estimated $42.25, but a quick glance at the VMS were close to that amount.
A relative of mine in the area told me about the high price estimate (above $30) on the VMS at the time when they drove southbound on I-95 between Springfield and Woodbridge about an hour ago. That's what prompted me to look, and indeed the $42.25 figure came across.
While I haven't dealt with DC traffic today because I'm in Florida, I do note today likely saw an early rush hour because the Christmas tree lighting on the Ellipse was scheduled for 5:00 PM. The President and Mrs. Trump were to attend, which means lots of street closures. It always snarls the traffic downtown, so a lot of people try to leave work early and that probably contributed to the tolls. I have no idea what sorts of other incidents there might have been.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 05, 2019, 06:10:06 PM
While I haven't dealt with DC traffic today because I'm in Florida, I do note today likely saw an early rush hour because the Christmas tree lighting on the Ellipse was scheduled for 5:00 PM. The President and Mrs. Trump were to attend, which means lots of street closures. It always snarls the traffic downtown, so a lot of people try to leave work early and that probably contributed to the tolls. I have no idea what sorts of other incidents there might have been.
I'll have to keep watching the prices on a day-to-day basis to see if it was a particular event or now a regular occurrence. I wouldn't expect it to be regular occurrence above $30 based on my experiences.
Interesting.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 05, 2019, 05:43:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 05:18:59 PM
Did you drive it or did you get that online?
I would need to see a price profile by minute and then know of any incidents and their severity, before I could make an evaluation.
Online via Transurban's toll calculator.
VDOT's https://www.511virginia.org/ online VMS signage also added up to that amount at the time based on entry / exit points.
That still doesn't answer the question, as to the minute-by-minute profile over the last few hours, or what incidents may have taken place, or what ripple effect may still be around due to an earlier incident (or incidents plural).
There could be an incident on the express lanes themselves to where they would raise the toll to where it would "price" all the non-HOV-3 traffic off of the express lanes.
My average for my previously discussed times mostly on the edges of peak hours on I-95, for 2019 so far is $13.80 per trip for the 36 HOT trips which were tolled, and the 3 GP trips when the HOT lanes were obviously unneeded.
There was a wreck on the 395 express lanes just before the beltway during today's afternoon rush hour.
IIRC my toll on the 95 lanes this afternoon entering around 530 was about $25 from the beltway to Garrisonville.
495 routinely cracks $20 during afternoon rush.
Also there is no way a general purpose trip from Tyson's to Garrisonville was 66 minutes. The time posted from the start of the 495 lanes and US 50 alone was 20 minutes.
I was looking at Wikipedia this morning and I couldn't resist cleaning up the Virginia HOT lanes article, which was a mess. But I haven't been to Hampton Roads since 2006, so I do not feel informed enough to clean up the I-64 section, which is an atrocious mess of terrible capitalization, incorrect verb tenses, etc. If any of you are so inclined, perhaps you could clean up that section? (The final sentence in the lede, the one beginning "The sixth project," also needs some tweaks.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_HOT_lanes
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 22, 2019, 12:20:32 PM
I was looking at Wikipedia this morning and I couldn't resist cleaning up the Virginia HOT lanes article, which was a mess. But I haven't been to Hampton Roads since 2006, so I do not feel informed enough to clean up the I-64 section, which is an atrocious mess of terrible capitalization, incorrect verb tenses, etc. If any of you are so inclined, perhaps you could clean up that section? (The final sentence in the lede, the one beginning "The sixth project," also needs some tweaks.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_HOT_lanes
The information about I-64 is generally correct, just bad grammar, though is outdated in a lot of areas where it says "proposed" on pieces that are either already implemented or under construction.
Here's some background on I-64's lanes -
- The first proposed segment was converting the existing reversible HOV lanes between I-264 and I-564 to HO/T. This was implemented in January 2018. It is tolled & free to HOV-2+ during peak hours, 5am - 9am and 2pm - 6pm, during weekdays, and free to all traffic at all other times, weekends, and holidays.
- The second segment, between VA-168 Battlefield Blvd and I-664 at Bowers Hill, is currently under construction adding one HO/T lane in each direction, alongside two general purpose lanes each way.
- The third segment, between I-564 and Mallory Street in Hampton, including the HRBT, will begin construction next year adding one full time HO/T lane in each direction, along with a second HO/T shoulder (open during peak hours) in each direction. Essentially, there will be two HO/T lanes each way during peak hours, and one HO/T lane each way off peak, alongside two general purpose lanes each way.
Those are the only segments that are definitely set and stone. The rest is all proposal and talk, though will likely eventually get implemented one way or another in the long-term. This includes -
- Converting the existing left HOV lane each way on the Peninsula between I-664 and Jefferson Ave to one HO/T lane each way.
- Converting the existing left HOV lane each way on the Southside between VA-168 Battlefield Blvd and I-264 to one HO/T lane each way.
- Converting the existing left general purpose lane and constructing a hard shoulder for part-time HO/T use on the Peninsula between I-664 and Mallory St, to provide two HO/T lanes each way during peak hours, and one HO/T lane each way during off-peak hours, alongside two general purpose lanes.
- Constructing a hard left shoulder each way on the Southside between I-264 and I-564 alongside the reversible lanes to act as a part-time HO/T lane for usage opposite the direction the reversible is going.
- This is the newest proposal, and is vague, but generally adding at least one HO/T lane each way on the entire length of I-664, including the MMMBT, between I-264 / I-64 at Bowers Hill to I-64 on the Peninsula.
All of these proposals combined, the end goal is to create a continuous 66-mile HO/T lane network along the entire Hampton Roads Beltway (I-64 / I-664), and I-64 extending west to Jefferson Ave outside the beltway. The typical section is generally proposed as one HO/T lane each way along with having a second HO/T shoulder lane each way during peak hours in select areas, such as on the entire I-564 to I-664 on the Peninsula section, being tolled & free to HOV-2+ during peak hours, 5am - 9am and 2pm - 6pm, during weekdays, and free to all traffic at all other times, weekends, and holidays.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 02:29:46 PM
Those are the only segments that are definitely set and stone. The rest is all proposal and talk, though will likely eventually get implemented one way or another in the long-term. This includes
The 4 sections with shoulder running / conversions were estimated at recent a CTB meeting to cost about $800 million in total, and those would connect the main segments that will have permanent managed lanes.
They gave the impression that it is not that far away, something they would like to have in place when the HRBT expansion is completed in 2025.
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 02:29:46 PM
Those are the only segments that are definitely set and stone. The rest is all proposal and talk, though will likely eventually get implemented one way or another in the long-term. This includes
The 4 sections with shoulder running / conversions were estimated at recent a CTB meeting to cost about $800 million in total, and those would connect the main segments that will have permanent managed lanes.
They gave the impression that it is not that far away, something they would like to have in place when the HRBT expansion is completed in 2025.
The two sections that involve restriping the HOV lane to HO/T and putting up barriers, signs, and gantries won't be too hard to do and would have minimal costs.
The other two, adding a bi-directional HO/T shoulder alongside the reversible, and the I-664 on Peninsula to HRBT HO/T addition are the major pieces and the $800 million figure is only for those two projects, IIRC about $500 million for the Peninsula addition, and $300 for the bi-directional Southside addition.
The most expensive piece though would undoubtedly be the I-664 leg, more specifically the MMMBT, and also squeezing it through Newport News. Would likely involve either widening the existing bridges by adding two lanes to each, or building a new 4-lane bridge, and then building two new tunnels parallel to the existing.
That's a lot of good info. I can't really add any of it to the article now because I'm on the Acela, but if it's still unchanged later this week, maybe I'll mess with it.
Meanwhile, I managed a few pictures near the Pentagon en route to Union Station this afternoon. This is much improved over how it used to be.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191222/80acf28a1d3342a3bdf0033f83e06b4b.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191222/f995359732a6e3999c8acf47426afd03.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191222/31c47cff527dcb47aeb95f78d4bdb16b.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191222/b609ffd985196263dde04a0bf2c3bff2.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191222/c07b9b7a3d0602f45f11d27074997ad8.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191222/8332add1da81f84fbde4ab736d87674e.jpg)
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 04:06:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 03:59:59 PM
The 4 sections with shoulder running / conversions were estimated at recent a CTB meeting to cost about $800 million in total, and those would connect the main segments that will have permanent managed lanes. They gave the impression that it is not that far away, something they would like to have in place when the HRBT expansion is completed in 2025.
The two sections that involve restriping the HOV lane to HO/T and putting up barriers, signs, and gantries won't be too hard to do and would have minimal costs. The other two, adding a bi-directional HO/T shoulder alongside the reversible, and the I-664 on Peninsula to HRBT HO/T addition are the major pieces and the $800 million figure is only for those two projects, IIRC about $500 million for the Peninsula addition, and $300 for the bi-directional Southside addition.
The $800 million is a preliminary estimate.
While that is a lot, still not that much compared to some of the regional projects.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 04:06:51 PM
The most expensive piece though would undoubtedly be the I-664 leg, more specifically the MMMBT, and also squeezing it through Newport News. Would likely involve either widening the existing bridges by adding two lanes to each, or building a new 4-lane bridge, and then building two new tunnels parallel to the existing.
A whole different corridor, that is getting into some of the Third Crossing segments, such as the I-664 bridge-tunnel expansion and the I-664 highway expansion in Newport News and Hampton.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 22, 2019, 04:37:19 PM
Meanwhile, I managed a few pictures near the Pentagon en route to Union Station this afternoon. This is much improved over how it used to be.
The I-395 express lanes are nice. Now all of the express lane roadway is 3 lanes on Shirley Highway, to where it divides to 2 lanes each way near the Pentagon and northward to D.C.
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 07:42:42 PM
The $800 million is a preliminary estimate.
While that is a lot, still not that much compared to some of the regional projects.
The only other regional project that has been fully funded higher than that price is the HRBT.
They're still looking for funding for I-64 High Rise Bridge corridor Phase #2 (over $1 billion), Oak Grove Interchange (rough estimates over $300 million), Bowers Hill Interchange (at least $600 million), I-264 Corridor Improvements (over $2 billion) I-64 widening to Richmond (around $1 billion), I-664 Widening & Third Crossing (over $5 billion), etc.
Then there's other projects that aren't currently on VDOT's radar but are going to become / already are serious bottlenecks in the future and would cost at least $1 billion or more to overhaul. A few that come to mind are VA-168, Downtown Interchange Complex
(I-264 / I-464 / Berkley Bridge / Downtown Tunnel), and US-58.
They are planning on using bonds to accelerate the project and repay them back with toll revenue. There's no way tax dollars would get this project completed.
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 07:42:42 PM
A whole different corridor, that is getting into some of the Third Crossing segments, such as the I-664 bridge-tunnel expansion and the I-664 highway expansion in Newport News and Hampton.
I-664 was recently added to the proposed HO/T network, so any projects that occur along there will likely include at least one HO/T lane each way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 08:02:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 07:42:42 PM
The $800 million is a preliminary estimate. While that is a lot, still not that much compared to some of the regional projects.
The only other regional project that has been fully funded higher than that price is the HRBT.
$3.8 billion
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 08:02:29 PM
They're still looking for funding for I-64 High Rise Bridge corridor Phase #2 (over $1 billion), Oak Grove Interchange (rough estimates over $300 million), Bowers Hill Interchange (at least $600 million), I-264 Corridor Improvements (over $2 billion) I-64 widening to Richmond (around $1 billion), I-664 Widening & Third Crossing (over $5 billion), etc.
$9.9 billion in total using those numbers.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 08:02:29 PM
Then there's other projects that aren't currently on VDOT's radar but are going to become / already are serious bottlenecks in the future and would cost at least $1 billion or more to overhaul. A few that come to mind are VA-168, Downtown Interchange Complex (I-264 / I-464 / Berkley Bridge / Downtown Tunnel),
I don't think they should even try to expand that given the urban and waterway constraints.
Address that indirectly by expanding the Jordan Bridge and its connections, and building the I-564 extension to I-664, along with the connector to the Craney Island future marine terminals and VA-164, with will also form the Uptown Crossing of the Elizabeth River.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 08:02:29 PM
and US-58.
They are planning on using bonds to accelerate the project and repay them back with toll revenue. There's no way tax dollars would get this project completed.
Which project?
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 08:31:58 PM
Which project?
The $800 million figure you mentioned for the HO/T conversions.
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 08:31:58 PM
Address that indirectly by expanding the Jordan Bridge and its connections
What specific things did you have in mind?
The Jordan Bridge has good connections with the I-464 interchange, though is far away from I-264.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 08:35:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 08:31:58 PM
Which project?
The $800 million figure you mentioned for the HO/T conversions.
Oh, ok.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 08:35:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 08:31:58 PM
Address that indirectly by expanding the Jordan Bridge and its connections
What specific things did you have in mind? The Jordan Bridge has good connections with the I-464 interchange, though is far away from I-264.
Parallel bridge, upgrade approach roads to 4-lane arterials.
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 08:54:21 PM
Parallel bridge, upgrade approach roads to 4-lane arterials.
VA-239 Victory Blvd is already a 4-lane divided highway between the bridge and I-264.
VA-337 Elm Ave headed to Downtown Portsmouth is still only 2-lanes and has a at-grade railroad crossing, though it would be a tight squeeze to get a 4-lane road through there, given the proximity of Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Scott's Annex being on either side.
Ideally, a 2-mile urban freeway could exist between a 4-lane Jordan Bridge and I-264 / VA-164, forming an inner loop bypass of the Downtown complex, though there's the issue of heavy residential development, wetlands, and more importantly Scott's Annex.
VDOT considering turning the south-facing ramp from Seminary Rd from an HOV-only ramp to an HO/T ramp. Can't say I'm too surprised...I think the currently HOV-only rule is a holdover from before the HO/T days.
https://alextimes.com/2019/12/i-395-hov-ramp/
^ Keeping that ramp HOV-only was part of the agreement for the Mark Center development.
Dave Dildine of WTOP tweeted that the aggregate toll from the 14th Street Bridge to Aquia topped $60 this afternoon. Not a big surprise it would be high given the combination of snow and the federal government closing at 1:00 due to the snow. At one point when I looked at the website, the toll to go from the American Legion Bridge to Aquia added up to $76.25 ($28 on the Beltway and $47 on I-95).
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2020, 05:49:32 PM
Dave Dildine of WTOP tweeted that the aggregate toll from the 14th Street Bridge to Aquia topped $60 this afternoon. Not a big surprise it would be high given the combination of snow and the federal government closing at 1:00 due to the snow. At one point when I looked at the website, the toll to go from the American Legion Bridge to Aquia added up to $76.25 ($28 on the Beltway and $47 on I-95).
Yikes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2020, 05:49:32 PM
Dave Dildine of WTOP tweeted that the aggregate toll from the 14th Street Bridge to Aquia topped $60 this afternoon. Not a big surprise it would be high given the combination of snow and the federal government closing at 1:00 due to the snow. At one point when I looked at the website, the toll to go from the American Legion Bridge to Aquia added up to $76.25 ($28 on the Beltway and $47 on I-95).
It was a little higher than that when I went home (reached beltway HOT entrance at 310).
Even with the congestion that exists in the toll lanes when they get pricey they were still appreciably faster than the main lanes.
It is always chaos when the government throws everyone out early. Took me 2 hrs to reach the American Legion Bridge (9 miles).
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 07, 2020, 06:36:43 PM
It is always chaos when the government throws everyone out early. Took me 2 hrs to reach the American Legion Bridge (9 miles).
Plus a higher probability of incidents and congestion in the express lanes themselves, and pricing designed to get people to avoid them in some cases.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 07, 2020, 05:49:32 PM
Dave Dildine of WTOP tweeted that the aggregate toll from the 14th Street Bridge to Aquia topped $60 this afternoon. Not a big surprise it would be high given the combination of snow and the federal government closing at 1:00 due to the snow. At one point when I looked at the website, the toll to go from the American Legion Bridge to Aquia added up to $76.25 ($28 on the Beltway and $47 on I-95).
I do not doubt this at all. And I was not in Virginia today, but I did see the traffic "heading for the exits" as Bob Marbourg used to say, in Northeast Washington, and it was terrible.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 07, 2020, 06:36:43 PM
It is always chaos when the government throws everyone out early. Took me 2 hrs to reach the American Legion Bridge (9 miles).
The answer from the Montgomery County, Maryland obstructionist cottage industry would have been that you were supposed to be taking public transit.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:25:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 07, 2020, 06:36:43 PM
It is always chaos when the government throws everyone out early. Took me 2 hrs to reach the American Legion Bridge (9 miles).
The answer from the Montgomery County, Maryland obstructionist cottage industry would have been that you were supposed to be taking public transit.
Supposedly public transit did not adjust their assets or schedules to reflect the mass exodus so a lot of people were stuck for significant periods of time waiting on their method of public transportation to arrive. I work with someone who had to call his wife from Columbia MD to come to Bethesda and get him because his commuter bus didn't change its schedule. Another reported back that the bus he uses did come earlier but were completely full.
I will admit it took me an hour alone to get off the reservation that I work at. Then most of the next hour was stuck on Clara Barton Pkwy trying to get to the Beltway. The neighborhood in between these locations was nearly normal. I gave up on using the beltway to the bridge several years ago as it is quite slow on the outer loop getting around to the bridge. Today VDOT had a work zone blocking lanes on the Outer Loop at I-66 which backed up traffic to Old Georgetown Rd in Maryland before the exodus was fully even underway...
Once I got to the Beltway and HOT lanes my ride home was maybe just 15 minutes longer than it would've been. But overall it took 3.75 hrs when it normally runs 1.5 hrs in the afternoon.
QuotePlus a higher probability of incidents and congestion in the express lanes themselves, and pricing designed to get people to avoid them in some cases.
Surprisingly there were very few incidents in the DC Metro area of any kind reported on WTOP during the 3 hours I was tuned in. Everything was volume, volume, volume.
I was very pleased to be telecommuting today.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:25:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 07, 2020, 06:36:43 PM
It is always chaos when the government throws everyone out early. Took me 2 hrs to reach the American Legion Bridge (9 miles).
The answer from the Montgomery County, Maryland obstructionist cottage industry would have been that you were supposed to be taking public transit.
Still, Metrorail tends to run better than the roadways during such storms. At least as long as there isn't 6-8" of snow on the aboveground sections...
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2020, 09:59:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:25:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 07, 2020, 06:36:43 PM
It is always chaos when the government throws everyone out early. Took me 2 hrs to reach the American Legion Bridge (9 miles).
The answer from the Montgomery County, Maryland obstructionist cottage industry would have been that you were supposed to be taking public transit.
Still, Metrorail tends to run better than the roadways during such storms. At least as long as there isn't 6-8" of snow on the aboveground sections...
Based on what Mapmikey told me about where he works and where he lives (I do not believe he checked with the Montgomery County Sierra Club or the Piedmont Environmental Council before making a choice of where to live), that trip is not practical by public transit.
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2020, 09:59:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:25:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 07, 2020, 06:36:43 PM
It is always chaos when the government throws everyone out early. Took me 2 hrs to reach the American Legion Bridge (9 miles).
The answer from the Montgomery County, Maryland obstructionist cottage industry would have been that you were supposed to be taking public transit.
Still, Metrorail tends to run better than the roadways during such storms. At least as long as there isn't 6-8" of snow on the aboveground sections...
Did not hear of any issues with Metro itself. I also don't know if VRE or MARC adjusted any of their schedules to accommodate the early rush hour.
If I used VRE and Metro it would take longer to commute both directions and because of the VRE schedule I would have to go from a 4-10 schedule to straight 8s, yet be gone from home the same amount of time as the 4-10 schedule, only 5 days a week instead of 4. This is why I continue to drive (21+ years now).
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 08, 2020, 06:53:24 AM
If I used VRE and Metro it would take longer to commute both directions and because of the VRE schedule I would have to go from a 4-10 schedule to straight 8s, yet be gone from home the same amount of time as the 4-10 schedule, only 5 days a week instead of 4. This is why I continue to drive (21+ years now).
Using rail transit includes the time between transfer and would be impacted by the connection time between home and VRE and between Metro and the work site.
So this morning, I-95's northbound mainline was closed for six hours between the exits for the Marine base and Triangle due to a big fatal crash. The HO/T lanes remained open. I wonder what the tolls were. Haven't seen anything and haven't looked at Transurban's site to try to estimate. Word is one lane is getting past the wreck site as I type this.
Very icy roads all over the place this morning. The snow was a wet snow combined with rain and it all froze overnight.
Edited to add: After I sat down at my PC at 7:50, I asked it for the toll from the HO/T lanes' southern end to the 14th Street Bridge and it was only $32.50. The bulk of that is not for the southern part, either, as it quoted $6.60 from the southern end to the slip ramp near the Prince William Parkway. There may be less commuter traffic than usual overall today, or a more spread-out morning commute, due to all the school closures and delays.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2020, 07:43:00 AM
So this morning, I-95's northbound mainline was closed for six hours between the exits for the Marine base and Triangle due to a big fatal crash. The HO/T lanes remained open. I wonder what the tolls were. Haven't seen anything and haven't looked at Transurban's site to try to estimate. Word is one lane is getting past the wreck site as I type this.
Very icy roads all over the place this morning. The snow was a wet snow combined with rain and it all froze overnight.
Edited to add: After I sat down at my PC at 7:50, I asked it for the toll from the HO/T lanes' southern end to the 14th Street Bridge and it was only $32.50. The bulk of that is not for the southern part, either, as it quoted $6.60 from the southern end to the slip ramp near the Prince William Parkway. There may be less commuter traffic than usual overall today, or a more spread-out morning commute, due to all the school closures and delays.
The toll for just the Garrisonville to Newington segment at 5:15 was a little over $10. It was way busier in the toll lanes than normal.
Mainline was backed up about 5 miles waiting to be forced off the interstate at Exit 148 for the fatal wreck.
The variable speed limit portion of the toll lanes was set to 55 throughout, which is the first time I can recall it being lowered solely for weather/road conditions. The first time it snowed right after they opened a couple years back the road was snow-covered but the speed limits were still 65.
^
If the mainline freeway was fully closed, why wouldn't they open up the HO/T lanes to get people through? They've done it before...
Gotta get money somehow I guess.
Apparently tonight there is another crash at the same place, but this time debris made its way into the HO/T lanes. That's about all I know and since the puck is about to drop, I'm not looking up the tolls.
WTOP Radio: First look at I-395 toll lane use and financial returns finds Transurban made $25M (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2020/02/a-first-look-at-i-395-toll-lane-use/?fbclid=IwAR2lj3a_VFVecv35oqYXkQiEbpBnwmTv0itiREokMsPKUIpxJtdSiIzOttI)
QuoteNew financial disclosures are shedding light on the early months of tolling and activity on Interstate 395 in Virginia.
QuoteTransurban, the I-395 Express Lanes operator, folded the I-395 data into existing I-95 Express Lanes calculations in its report to investors on the second half of 2019. But the Australia-based company describes the I-395 lanes traffic numbers and revenue as "in line with expectations."
QuoteOverall, toll revenue on the I-95/I-395 corridor was up 13.6% in the second half of 2019 compared to the same period a year earlier.
This might belong in a broader-scope thread than this one. I saw a tweet this morning about the new GoToll app (https://www.gotoll.com/about-gotoll) available in Virginia. It's apparently intended for people who don't use Virginia's toll roads often enough to justify getting an E-ZPass, though you do have to have a credit or debit card to use it (whereas Virginia has a system to allow cash-payers to use E-ZPass). There is a service charge of 85¢ per trip, similar to how Parkmobile charges a flat service charge per transaction (45¢, last I knew).
I imagine this might be of limited interest unless and until it were to become more broadly available across the country, in which case maybe it would be a solution to the lack of transponder interoperability.
Took the day off to get my Virginia REAL ID (pretty painless) and it was a nice day so I went for a little walking tour.
Taken from the S. Abingdon St. bridge over I-395, looking east-northeast. You can see there are still some sound walls that need to be put up (this was part of the Phase II of the I-395 HOT lane conversion).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ITQ7rJaPq6zZM3HJs9cEHtzsYYDwN-4fz7Nkcfr2rrIjGcrFEuT5BvoB6NP72Bn6ZFwuL_MPsppEYIOQNIch0qMfFgCwhObqQTQqZDcLD0T3z__tG2odlQCToQ07cg12cf3_h0VXMRtHd7-tZoqDp1OfMGzhln4cfWzaV1JqI7UFlueqPM_dKOxMPn_L-89B_wyww6CTEI5o3IoRR6gNswiMYzZZv_v33Cu-jPIVMNyWdot1Ekc20_Xy7HXZX_lp8aNcWr0gVsDKFgM8KSi4Yj-GQMxzILu0jkizc5mvdcEKVdHQIpI64iuyYgvmVceqCu0MmiK5hwWnoASMCWuIWnIFtvwgpeN9VEIth3FQZkiwuLobgHiEbijNOZiKlfKzLG-nhUzBGfglIAItex9fmZcEgEnAx2eJE7VhSGVQ-UdHkb8E6K6ksCLY2CtCF9Z5qm2odwtqNGkY9AmkT_j42wXkc45V3MDGMMVUxMYgJU_n3V-MhmyiiYG0NkJIEE9ax2TMcs66W1WvB0BU18bSl0OVKiBHhkqRQg4lPGxAHJ2uzWP09lYnwhVZ5YFrgLNk4f1kdB816a1YUhoQ-XB9-TVJHDIBZSiN8XOYIUAlK4sEKXYFVrns9bF1CZQlor6JP0r3Au_17ZEMvJ-JXtxxk8J1BqEnblPKGIgX3u94tswrRitSRmFOnnfJqTFiFDAoVHt9mMqPC9QKJrTli3XQbSo60Tle0jPPz1rqTSEswmutTr4=w834-h625-no)
Taken from the east end of the pedestrian bridge over I-395 at Shirlington. Good shot of a HOT-lane price/information board in a residential area.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mk4WTgr_Mrr40bNDFUvZDnfv3WhfMBWKzRxqfQiQDaJcz8c7nU6EVC9MkG6kbicdXEBtJ4oEDac9ab-RBTGxk7fREYWeEkq3Q_HcfvrEBY-dhY3V2Mhjuq0PBAb10dwJUc27kD_jGgfEkaCZ6EkUMq9TIfNMd2ljl47xPbp648JAvVN0b21vFi8KBKHKsNXj9ZnNKsOif57_wVgTeznaB_xYH3ANKgXe6IycsploG4c7QsWLbnhJd69A1OkrvZIu_SVVbgB547S_DcSM2zOpKzLRgcAmBE8f7OMcC7FRDHLJ-M483arwUo1KeTfbiZW4UYZSKfYza9Vf7HIVEiKT2NwkBT9JgSkrt36c1BZXVxCKOrIJrTAJ3Y7TGZUNS-0H9B5r79RFSboYQ6dLXCwE1gIoDZrSb1hGDxim0xsAGn4feyQtGvDqcBuFhLSORHZ_clQBvPyAH_8v0PCnvUBSg6czvvf61kFZStyr2chj6HgC68_TSY_vq7ixA4Z_M1O5kuBMu-4P_Muviz2unjnwdMgkgawS2KHPHLQB0x9-CCfyDRFdaP3rA6kD_1rHExxXE2QaUOf1UCrKqo3RW14CCYhKZTdnHjaWwOtY7Acio0zJaSHe4X1414AlQx4UMTWE1GzsNyIrrwNrJy7VRG0w9BhdHJwk2l4NscKI1qUC_hYGbeoLjBUwSc1IQLNUY47dEuqBwBJ3vWlwIp7pBvkx5p1YMyq5vpurE199fYmahtDOHMM=w834-h625-no)
Taken from the pedestrian bridge over I-395. When HOT lane conversion work was at its peak, this laydown area was jammed full of vehicles and equipment. Now, next to nothing.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/IxAAsalzzI-2qcmRhHQieHLMgCCQ77TJ_1le57Q26rCwUXrhbiKpeEx5JTL6xjWdZ0_VouvnHD_JsWopSzXQFqbFGO8scHsaCFoLIaR_jZtollMe3jvj-ohorZT6oeDyiC179fCRGBi73oUtyQdA0M9QsGY_vckk880YMGcRzimDzFn3JFjnqpyoCsTYG8AcFcq9bWPRPxLswVgvBD7Vf_9PV2KuwKHNUwY-ckPoPSSMocIXvnD7cNKt2oDCgudquJLF-yat6VOKUkGt2k0WE2AGBLcwCxbIkuSgmXkmHZxN4r4UyQckOWdDd0etMDk0FZgiOHRK_uEGJuS8l7upO5_BtNDOF1qxzk4afP64_MCcxJtP-HPUi70bQJkCGJOiL8KglS3ufA3NfMoLeELtU_vgAbrT_QJ9ZKljqC5zsWVT9jOTstLWxAWL2hIMidDf9LpC7u0nGl0FtqP1XuCd3RJ9gZwA6ZO3QRZdI8MU3qwlNLfwE0YEiRc6eIq7dzwgaBZJ_qb_JyrSndi7iWGgD2lGD1xWVi5FsCZGYI0Y0s6QQB3TpgWA2m_UJr7nAaxxZZfoBZo-1UV-R-WaEodAij23UgtKUwMd6jH2WogdgUugkZAF2LksHn2nYGj4MiCUTdEW-8S7Q8MkoZCdcgwehYGU90LHWFcqIAJ29jN33o0SQqW-Nx_7fLh4HzmZTUDi_i9BxxdDcvO8pYctwFeNH0KfWgJB1qEWZQ8ukfjFmbUEIY8=w834-h625-no)
Taken from the pedestrian bridge, looking south/outbound. Good example of the new LED lights for the HOT lanes, whereas the general-purpose lanes still have the orange-hue sodium filament bulbs.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/vLGQcaKcSYcNJfxpztli8hDe-RPSkxwmVDqcu4gp0uR-0za48VkVNOfoX_bifi7TMdKFKgSwYIHSTBbIXNn7kYhTiSUP965tcsMuFxsw76nEcWzBxZcF7h0dNqqzQNHge_5az1NTNgNfoNjJYyjwbYkle9C1YGQmYhYg3lOhwks8G8nvmbxPCOmXGlVJvYdkJ2bOJa9-9YCUGrE-qtf5AglNn2FsiNXvppXRn_uASYBjkFOYqqlS2ylVrHKV-ex7jA1B1fFjHY_JPzgtN7oShofl_4KDwohkn7BCfPF3MEx1K40apCoeOL3jAY4P5TiScbc3M7ebvsVdc90QTtI-NAg9DilHcAaWEBBPlp90fs37xzKEBF1_F05wTLHfupT50q-JCtqCn7LgENQ7mrXph5TSFXfm8zrVfFhk6ax94UP2oh9h6EcTfqPNmwpHLlviulC8wnrRg1WghbN6U1ZV_d03XvVcDhASgebsk2meVVaXFPSvPyVs3yoZ5J6L9i5Z_RLUNtRqYKlnLtUgt9hVgTFeVyiDGVYPhHJtuUxEVvK_L74I8M915BzFyds9WyPSmHIAK-7CbBRWhj5GLp8yDlgeMYn0-6HU51NYEzbrnW547dAIRPB9GdEqlCvF3hSvAesOwER5cfdA8N3CwjNMZAcGwHZOG6r_R2Ko6sZML7LAkyMjFmCdTMiiDp7385DDgFFE6sOjejpIosOM6gkdNNxJbC96tyLuvzNr1E2V0381LyI=w469-h625-no)
Pedestrian-level view of the new sound walls, from the non-freeway side (S. 31st St.). There used to be trees and shrubberies here acting as the buffer between the local road and the highway.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/0RAaFxK1zvv-ZfcsLJN9SgJd7tJLFGpGwRWJCoTQRYvjqJkoRmTdFh3g5A2IbEZSau9OunqothShnG6GCo0OFAZLRUnAQLpc0S4i-QOEgNLuFP3Ir0z8oxJ4ZkB42H9J94oZFs1ohyC-rugEq5owBad9PdbkYCI6GH_VCT4DZnL2s0disv_5-_9dqUvptzy-deW9jVvAAuXc4HpMWI2smElXYYt6rhVkqfZRfPWwoIXTx-FQlHgKrqRqqydtWrIBmHZfxFdmQCMf0cn7KrSIxtqlXj89SR-XeyTSFD3Rp9pbPPoD6UNbS8x_W5FHGJSvAd7tIVE4pJnbQYwQC8HC9QXFl7On_U3sXAfUtzj2In7LRpIN7xJ--GiuVbC_Y60vWuttEojbDoJLWhtzDl2mJI4NMeWqp4taqL5uHFdFhHwtSQCnMBNj7UTD-3HO_OdJYOZExRC6kggGmpjl0R3HPLtR6q1eOMVsUwzVAi5TZPGWBUwxqozHvhISO_2Y8diER5JUulDTZ4v0Z7_wVmxyfuhzBPYECm0HTWC3JScw5m59cA8nzBSQirz_7jhWPSRZ4LZDh1S0YK6Q_5ya8umkeR6QhfMQVT2f_8yEDQAxdFXi4Aoih1p873UeCzAG43O8kkH-QpXr-YMXABW6fCXRbsks5YFttJQVwOvmeA2msZEv2n04qD-chTboLmkgKn9TKi4INsk68cBEw6MGIKo8fUAPMfq1dKB11eyFnKq4bPY46hA=w834-h625-no)
End of the sound walls on S. 31st Street.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jxz_8tegXKN21KrDsB0BuFM6yjHKrebBh_RcAL8mixGJST8i8yGgGll83Jo0TyujC0XLooP9RTAHvgx21KSsQWyWIUs8g6k9u53xSpvNviZVC0wWs0D2IG_GZzZioCgaRdyYe-dJjxe9bx99ycZofSN9-e3DNnIw50Tq9LUYXcGf8xy424efZdGW6AqQNRYp3YgqLOI7V3Aa0fZTodI_p6DnX4ajRn6OYimcr2ie_7QirsFMcAq5YkaW0ZgN12YwruIO_kU7xKERjOrhXyeXzKRcqByfBlsuZB1mKkRuHPvootWXj8Kxz0F33DV8dt_v2bMvxU3uRbUPvZKbG2hxL5jrSCSFbh5MxwaXh5nPyfSuxXR2LD69AiUssPUpBQExNcT-x1KhREIDE4b74NeSkr87ib0z3FMX4MxppCBx57dU8sZllmpYNMdPO4b5sKTRCr2NBijEQtOTZxDnC73o1SioP5XLsz_IpczBEnpzNlRn0ATvYJ2gpeYVWEpnAfUM4MFEaXtpZRRLyFB22HOSeKH-hImNLJyEDLC_6pQ-oMoK7V1-4vnADb85eMbLE6B5ki62hcIYVfL62KEmQGuSQyPkN4yhe_VonUIu4eP48IN2A2BC_yzSlBQFeONq_pGeD2AwGE18_kagD74sDRnXfUegvYA1KyPE1EXJWep2IdGtWV8M3b-cmc2244NtJC_yPvPhHnT0RAEdYxAGDqsugHX4D7N5a5MCKLeU0hWEn8jt9BQ=w834-h625-no)
Images are not displaying either via the website or in Tapatalk.
Gave it another try.
They work now. Nice to get a different angle for viewing that highway.
WRC-TV 4 ("NBC4"): I-395 Express Lanes to Close for 10 Consecutive Weekends (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/i-395-express-lanes-to-close-for-10-consecutive-weekends/2232945/?fbclid=IwAR2zqzzBtYsnl0Ujr4y-gSJTFIP1hP3rc6Fg7iXDo7-YPnTvjOuZIDlQFh8)
QuoteDrivers who use I-395 need to know about a series of weekend closures that could affect your travel plans.
Starting the weekend of March 6-8, Express Lanes will close from near Edsall Road to the D.C. line.
The closures will begin at 11 p.m. Fridays and end at 4 a.m. Monday mornings.
WTOP has a report about the unsurprising decline in HO/T lane traffic during the pandemic. The most interesting part, IMO, is the part about I-66 inside the Beltway–it says the typical toll to drive the full length at 8:30 AM is normally around $35 but has been in the $2 range in recent weeks. I haven't been out on the highway enough to have noticed, although on April 14 I will be using I-395 around midday to get to Arlington Cemetery.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2020/04/express-lanes-traffic-falls-in-coronavirus-era-as-gridlock-disappears/
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 02, 2020, 07:42:31 AM
WTOP has a report about the unsurprising decline in HO/T lane traffic during the pandemic. The most interesting part, IMO, is the part about I-66 inside the Beltway–it says the typical toll to drive the full length at 8:30 AM is normally around $35 but has been in the $2 range in recent weeks. I haven't been out on the highway enough to have noticed, although on April 14 I will be using I-395 around midday to get to Arlington Cemetery.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2020/04/express-lanes-traffic-falls-in-coronavirus-era-as-gridlock-disappears/
On the two Mondays I have gone to work the afternoon rush hour (5 p.m.) toll on the beltway outer loop, full length, was under $4. I-95 tolls combined from the beltway to Garrisonville were under $10 total. Traffic was so light this most recent Monday that I used no toll lanes at all.
I no longer have to report to work at all so I won't have any more data to share for a while...
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 02, 2020, 08:46:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 02, 2020, 07:42:31 AM
WTOP has a report about the unsurprising decline in HO/T lane traffic during the pandemic. The most interesting part, IMO, is the part about I-66 inside the Beltway–it says the typical toll to drive the full length at 8:30 AM is normally around $35 but has been in the $2 range in recent weeks. I haven't been out on the highway enough to have noticed, although on April 14 I will be using I-395 around midday to get to Arlington Cemetery.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2020/04/express-lanes-traffic-falls-in-coronavirus-era-as-gridlock-disappears/
On the two Mondays I have gone to work the afternoon rush hour (5 p.m.) toll on the beltway outer loop, full length, was under $4. I-95 tolls combined from the beltway to Garrisonville were under $10 total. Traffic was so light this most recent Monday that I used no toll lanes at all.
I no longer have to report to work at all so I won't have any more data to share for a while...
The I-395 lanes likely won't be open when we head to the cemetery, but they'll probably be open when we come back and we will use them without having to pay a toll because we'll have three people in the car. I'm not sure who'll be driving, so I don't know whether I'll get a good chance to notice what the rates would be. Either way, it won't be at a time that would normally be afternoon rush hour, should be earlier than that.
I may head over to my mom's house in Fairfax this weekend to help with a couple of things. I won't be using the HO/T lanes for that trip (the first exit is too far out of the way), but if I take the Beltway I'll keep my eyes peeled to see how the toll compares to weekends in the past. May not take the Beltway, though.
On my near-daily mid-afternoon runs/walks over 395 (on the shirlington pedestrian bridge), the HOT lanes are usually 100% unoccupied. I'll try to take some photos in the coming days.
Traffic is so light that there is practically no advantage to using them, unless you particularly want a carriageway to yourself. Also note that slugging is almost certainly suspended indefinitely.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 02, 2020, 10:21:29 AM
On my near-daily mid-afternoon runs/walks over 395 (on the shirlington pedestrian bridge), the HOT lanes are usually 100% unoccupied.
Traffic is so light that there is practically no advantage to using them, unless you particularly want a carriageway to yourself. Also note that slugging is almost certainly suspended indefinitely.
For us there is a mild advantage to having access to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway exit that is accessible only from the HO/T lanes, though with the lighter traffic right now I'd consider entering at Turkeycock instead of near the Pentagon if I were driving solo.
In the case of our next planned trip on that road, since we'll have three people in the car there'll be no real reason not to use them when they're available, given that we have an E-ZPass Flex. The added benefit to us of doing that is that it re-starts the clock on the six-month period for the E-ZPass Flex. That is, the device is free as long as you use it in HOV mode at least once during a six-month period; otherwise, you pay a one-time $10 fee for the transponder. I guess I should look at my E-ZPass statement to see which transponder we used the last time we used HOV mode and and then use the other one this time.
I'm not able to visit my Dad in his assisted living facility on the MD Eastern Shore, because they are allowing no visitors.
So right there is one less vehicle every two weeks that used the I-95 HOT lanes and the Bay Bridge.
Not just commuters.
Quote from: Beltway on April 02, 2020, 12:50:37 PM
I'm not able to visit my Dad in his assisted living facility on the MD Eastern Shore, because they are allowing no visitors.
So right there is one less vehicle every two weeks that used the I-95 HOT lanes and the Bay Bridge.
Not just commuters.
I have a former (retired) colleague who is in a memory unit at an assisted living place
in Arlington County, Virginia that go to see sometimes, but not now.
That trip allows me to see what's up with the construction on I-66 eastbound between
U.S. 29 (Lee Highway) north of Falls Church and VA-120 (North Glebe Road).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 02, 2020, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 02, 2020, 12:50:37 PM
I'm not able to visit my Dad in his assisted living facility on the MD Eastern Shore, because they are allowing no visitors.
So right there is one less vehicle every two weeks that used the I-95 HOT lanes and the Bay Bridge.
Not just commuters.
I have a former (retired) colleague who is in a memory unit at an assisted living place
in Arlington County, Virginia that go to see sometimes, but not now.
That trip allows me to see what's up with the construction on I-66 eastbound between
U.S. 29 (Lee Highway) north of Falls Church and VA-120 (North Glebe Road).
Last I drove it was coming along pretty well, might be close to done at this point.
More impressive nearby is the pedestrian bridge for the W&OD trail going over Lee Highway, just south of I-66. The bridge foundation and desk are in place, may be done in the coming weeks.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 02, 2020, 05:08:33 PM
Last I drove it was coming along pretty well, might be close to done at this point.
I drove all of I-66 from Manassas to the Beltway back in February, from my observation I'd say there's at least a year or longer before anything is substantially complete. It's certainly coming along well, the most notable areas where the reconstruction of the interchanges, especially at VA-28.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 02, 2020, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 02, 2020, 03:48:40 PM
That trip allows me to see what's up with the construction on I-66 eastbound between
U.S. 29 (Lee Highway) north of Falls Church and VA-120 (North Glebe Road).
Last I drove it was coming along pretty well, might be close to done at this point.
Getting there, but not really close.
Just east of the eastbound on-ramp from Sycamore St., there's an overhead sign assembly indicating the on-ramp (rightmost) lane will continue to, and become, the off-ramp for Glebe Rd./Fairfax Dr., with an "exit only" arrow for the new rightmost lane. However, that new lane is still closed at this point, with traffic entering from Sycamore/Roosevelt forced to merge into the two through lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 02, 2020, 05:08:33 PM
Last I drove it was coming along pretty well, might be close to done at this point.
I drove all of I-66 from Manassas to the Beltway back in February, from my observation I'd say there's at least a year or longer before anything is substantially complete. It's certainly coming along well, the most notable areas where the reconstruction of the interchanges, especially at VA-28.
Correct regarding the I-66 outside the beltway HOT lanes project the goal I believe is to get rid of the rest of the VA-28 lights from I-66 to Westfields Blvd by the end of this year and thus appears to be the top priority at the moment.
Went over to my mom's house today to help with some things and pick up some items. The toll for the Inner Loop to go the entire length of the HO/T lanes was $2.60 shortly after 1:00 PM. That's about half what it normally is on a weekend. Road was so empty, I was quite thankful for cruise control just to keep my speed down!
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 05, 2020, 03:57:26 PM
Road was so empty, I was quite thankful for cruise control just to keep my speed down!
In the general purpose lanes (55 mph) or HO/T lanes (65 mph)?
It'd be tempting to do at least 75 mph in either road with how wide that highway is!
General-purpose lanes. The closest exit to my mom's house is Route 236, so the HO/T lanes don't help me get there. I set the cruise control at 65 in the mainline and I was far from the fastest person but not the slowest. At least one car that passed me was going at least 85.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 05, 2020, 04:11:35 PM
General-purpose lanes. The closest exit to my mom's house is Route 236, so the HO/T lanes don't help me get there. I set the cruise control at 65 in the mainline and I was far from the fastest person but not the slowest. At least one car that passed me was going at least 85.
That's how I usually cruise the beltway.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 05, 2020, 04:11:35 PM
General-purpose lanes. The closest exit to my mom's house is Route 236, so the HO/T lanes don't help me get there. I set the cruise control at 65 in the mainline and I was far from the fastest person but not the slowest. At least one car that passed me was going at least 85.
Drove on I-264 down here today, speed limit 55 mph, was doing around 63 - 65 mph, and was the slowest car. Most traffic was averaging above 70 mph. Wide open 8-lane highway. Ended up bumping up to about 70 mph, still was passed numerous times.
https://twitter.com/trafficbooth/status/1250555192506007558?s=21
There are two overturned vehicles. I wonder how fast someone was going. BTW, yesterday at around 2:00 PM the toll was $2.00 from the Pentagon to Turkeycock. I forgot to look to see what it was beyond there because we weren't paying anyway due to having three of us in the car. We were also the only vehicle in there until a construction vehicle entered from Seminary.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2020, 06:48:21 PM
BTW, yesterday at around 2:00 PM the toll was $2.00 from the Pentagon to Turkeycock. I forgot to look to see what it was beyond there because we weren't paying anyway due to having three of us in the car. We were also the only vehicle in there until a construction vehicle entered from Seminary.
Wonder if Transurban is going to be able to service its bonded indebtedness with a crash in toll revenues on the I-95, I-395 and I-495 HOV/Toll projects?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 15, 2020, 10:59:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2020, 06:48:21 PM
BTW, yesterday at around 2:00 PM the toll was $2.00 from the Pentagon to Turkeycock. I forgot to look to see what it was beyond there because we weren't paying anyway due to having three of us in the car. We were also the only vehicle in there until a construction vehicle entered from Seminary.
Wonder if Transurban is going to be able to service its bonded indebtedness with a crash in toll revenues on the I-95, I-395 and I-495 HOV/Toll projects?
I'm more curious about their VA-895 facility in Richmond. It already is a underutilized roadway, I can't imagine the numbers now.
I took a ride on it one Friday afternoon near rush hour to avoid Downtown Richmond in early March, before the restrictions and shut downs, and it was practically empty. A few dozen cars passing along its entire length, mostly on its western end near I-95.
It's high toll over $4 doesn't help either.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 16, 2020, 01:18:53 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 15, 2020, 10:59:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2020, 06:48:21 PM
BTW, yesterday at around 2:00 PM the toll was $2.00 from the Pentagon to Turkeycock. I forgot to look to see what it was beyond there because we weren't paying anyway due to having three of us in the car. We were also the only vehicle in there until a construction vehicle entered from Seminary.
Wonder if Transurban is going to be able to service its bonded indebtedness with a crash in toll revenues on the I-95, I-395 and I-495 HOV/Toll projects?
I'm more curious about their VA-895 facility in Richmond. It already is a underutilized roadway, I can't imagine the numbers now.
I took a ride on it one Friday afternoon near rush hour to avoid Downtown Richmond in early March, before the restrictions and shut downs, and it was practically empty. A few dozen cars passing along its entire length, mostly on its western end near I-95.
It's high toll over $4 doesn't help either.
I'm already predicting another toll hike here when all of this mess is over.
You heard it here first folks :-D
Quote from: plain on April 16, 2020, 06:02:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 16, 2020, 01:18:53 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 15, 2020, 10:59:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2020, 06:48:21 PM
BTW, yesterday at around 2:00 PM the toll was $2.00 from the Pentagon to Turkeycock. I forgot to look to see what it was beyond there because we weren't paying anyway due to having three of us in the car. We were also the only vehicle in there until a construction vehicle entered from Seminary.
Wonder if Transurban is going to be able to service its bonded indebtedness with a crash in toll revenues on the I-95, I-395 and I-495 HOV/Toll projects?
I'm more curious about their VA-895 facility in Richmond. It already is a underutilized roadway, I can't imagine the numbers now.
I took a ride on it one Friday afternoon near rush hour to avoid Downtown Richmond in early March, before the restrictions and shut downs, and it was practically empty. A few dozen cars passing along its entire length, mostly on its western end near I-95.
It's high toll over $4 doesn't help either.
I'm already predicting another toll hike here when all of this mess is over.
You heard it here first folks :-D
I'm also predicting more shunpiking if its hiked - more so than there is now. Could volumes get down to 5,000 AADT?
See VA-168 in Chesapeake as an example of what happens when you hike a toll from $2 to $3 off peak and from $2 to $6 then to $8 on peak weekends. Tourists still pay it since that's normal price for northeastern states, but a lot do avoid it as well. VA-895 doesn't carry much thru traffic though, mainly local, so a hike could hurt volumes.
I hope VDOT sets the express lane speed limit at 75 south of Potomac Mills once the extension to Fredericksburg opens. Variable speed limit signs may be necessary to facilitate this. Higher speed limits will attract drivers during off-peak times.
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 16, 2020, 06:24:15 PM
I hope VDOT sets the express lane speed limit at 75 south of Potomac Mills once the extension to Fredericksburg opens. Variable speed limit signs may be necessary to facilitate this. Higher speed limits will attract drivers during off-peak times.
I believe the speed limit will be posted at 70 mph south of Stafford in the Express Lanes once the extension is complete. State law would need to be changed to legally post anything above 70 mph.
If Virginia increased the maximum speed limit to 75 mph, there's a whole lot more than just the Express Lanes that could be increased, namely hundreds of miles of rural interstate highway. I'd rather see efforts for maximum speed limit increases be more directed toward increasing non-limited-access divided highways from 60 to 65 mph.
At one point, IIRC, the now-dead US-460 toll road between Petersburg and Suffolk had a proposal that would accommodate a 75 mph speed limit, though obviously never came to fruition.
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 16, 2020, 06:24:15 PM
I hope VDOT sets the express lane speed limit at 75 south of Potomac Mills once the extension to Fredericksburg opens. Variable speed limit signs may be necessary to facilitate this. Higher speed limits will attract drivers during off-peak times.
You're not going to see a speed limit of 75. Period.
A member of the House of Delegates introduced a bill a few years ago that would have allowed 80-mph speed limits on toll roads, including HO/T lanes. Not surprisingly, it didn't make out of the subcommittee.
VDOT is reportedly planning to post the I-66 HO/T lanes outside the Beltway at 70 mph, but I'll believe that when I see it. If anything, maybe they might post that west of either Fair Oaks or Centreville, but I'll be mildly surprised if they post it the whole way.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 16, 2020, 07:37:12 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 16, 2020, 06:24:15 PM
I hope VDOT sets the express lane speed limit at 75 south of Potomac Mills once the extension to Fredericksburg opens. Variable speed limit signs may be necessary to facilitate this. Higher speed limits will attract drivers during off-peak times.
You're not going to see a speed limit of 75. Period.
Why not?
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 17, 2020, 08:18:40 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 16, 2020, 07:37:12 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 16, 2020, 06:24:15 PM
I hope VDOT sets the express lane speed limit at 75 south of Potomac Mills once the extension to Fredericksburg opens. Variable speed limit signs may be necessary to facilitate this. Higher speed limits will attract drivers during off-peak times.
You're not going to see a speed limit of 75. Period.
Why not?
Because the General Assembly won't pass it, especially not given the current party breakdown in both chambers. Even if they did pass it, the current governor would almost surely veto it. A 75-mph bill would be highly unlikely to make it out of committee at all. The 2010 bill that led to the current statute had Gov. McDonnell's support–he made 70-mph speed limits a campaign issue–and his party controlled both chambers.
^
I'm surprised the governor did not veto the increase in reckless driving threshold from 80 to 85 mph a few months back.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 17, 2020, 09:42:38 AM
^
I'm surprised the governor did not veto the increase in reckless driving threshold from 80 to 85 mph a few months back.
I was mildly surprised it made it to the governor at all. In the past, that sort of thing has usually died in committee.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 16, 2020, 07:37:12 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 16, 2020, 06:24:15 PM
I hope VDOT sets the express lane speed limit at 75 south of Potomac Mills once the extension to Fredericksburg opens. Variable speed limit signs may be necessary to facilitate this. Higher speed limits will attract drivers during off-peak times.
You're not going to see a speed limit of 75. Period.
I agree - for one simple reason - I do not think
any freeway in Northern Virginia has a design speed higher than 70 MPH.
Everyone has made great points. I also believe 75 will never be allowed, but I've seen a speed limit of 75 on HOT lanes in Texas within more complex freeway designs than I-95 through Prince William and Stafford County. Personally I don't believe it would be politically acceptable as a permanent static speed limit, but as a speed limit for off peak times within a variable speed limit zone through what is mostly undeveloped forest it definitely would work. Virginia is no longer the same politically.
Note: My post is dependent on design speeds for the HOT lanes which would safely allow a speed limit of 75 south of Dale City.
Gruesome fatal crash in the I-95 HO/T lanes today caused by a guy who was fleeing the police smashing through the gate arms to go the wrong way in the reversible lanes.
I made the second image larger for legibility reasons. This was immediately north of the Cardinal Drive overpass (just north of the weigh station that's north of the interchange with Route 234). I notice the tractor-trailer in the HO/T lanes. Wonder whether he got a ticket since it's illegal for large to be in there.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210319/4484380c66839ad85957092317f40462.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210319/1c700a8e9667cea844d2e8684929f79b.jpg)
All this... to avoid a speeding ticket for 15 mph over the speed limit.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 10:13:07 PM
All this... to avoid a speeding ticket for 15 mph over the speed limit.
Makes you wonder whether she was "riding dirty" (had something else going on like carrying drugs, wanted for something else, driving on a suspended license, etc.).
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 18, 2021, 10:18:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 10:13:07 PM
All this... to avoid a speeding ticket for 15 mph over the speed limit.
Makes you wonder whether she was "riding dirty" (had something else going on like carrying drugs, wanted for something else, driving on a suspended license, etc.).
Oh, most definitely. There's no doubt about it.
I'm interested in what the findings will be with this investigation.
Oof. Unless she was doing drugs.
I can't believe that the car successfully made it thru the entire series of closed gates and kept on going...
On one hand I wonder if VDOT/Transurban will take another look at the gate system because of this, but on the other hand you can't really design against crazy situations like this...that driver was clearly determined to get thru onto the express lanes, wrong-way or not.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 19, 2021, 09:01:25 AM
I can't believe that the car successfully made it thru the entire series of closed gates and kept on going...
On one hand I wonder if VDOT/Transurban will take another look at the gate system because of this, but on the other hand you can't really design against crazy situations like this...that driver was clearly determined to get thru onto the express lanes, wrong-way or not.
Even if they reinforced the gates, someone could still drive through the median access points for law enforcement and emergency response vehicles (https://goo.gl/maps/BxgyJfQFmTnVHNsg9). Someone who doesn't care about smashing through the gates surely wouldn't be deterred by the plastic bollards!
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 19, 2021, 09:01:25 AM
I can't believe that the car successfully made it thru the entire series of closed gates and kept on going...
On one hand I wonder if VDOT/Transurban will take another look at the gate system because of this, but on the other hand you can't really design against crazy situations like this...that driver was clearly determined to get thru onto the express lanes, wrong-way or not.
Gate arms are traditionally fiberglass or 1"x3" pieces of wood. They are generally made to breakaway when hit. They are more of a simple deterrent rather than a hard stoppage.
Example of a typical gate: https://goo.gl/maps/2jTJxNcV1mKNxz7D7 . At some ramps, the gate doesn't even go across the entire lane.
The NJ Turnpike has seemingly more meaty barriers, and they generally do go across the lane, but they will snap if a car tries to barrel thru it: https://goo.gl/maps/mXHGg1GgTEzk4aDY9
But another difference that's relevant here: The barriers on 95 in Virginia can be rammed by motorists going highway speeds. 65, 75, 85, doesn't matter...they'll snap easily.
I never did care for the gates used down there; they're more like a "well, we trust that people won't do the wrong thing" dissuasion, rather than a strong barrier.
Heh, regarding gate arms, I remember during the Blizzard of 1996, when I was attending law school, the parking department left the law school parking gate arm (https://goo.gl/maps/SVDiXairxNaYBJGWA) operating as normal. Problem was, they also did a half-arsed job of plowing, and the gate is on a slight hill. People got stuck when they had to stop and wait for the arm to rise. The gate arm they had then was wooden and far less robust than the current exit arm, so a couple of guys got together and snapped it off. I imagine nowadays they'd break off the entrance arm.
That was the same snowstorm in which Durham County stopped plowing the roads because the county's only snowplow broke down.
As we suspected, the woman who caused that crash was riding dirty (https://wtop.com/prince-william-county/2021/03/woman-in-fatal-dale-city-i-95-crash-was-considered-a-fugitive/).
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2021, 10:55:32 AM
As we suspected, the woman who caused that crash was riding dirty (https://wtop.com/prince-william-county/2021/03/woman-in-fatal-dale-city-i-95-crash-was-considered-a-fugitive/).
They see me rollin'...they hatin'...
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2021, 10:55:32 AM
As we suspected, the woman who caused that crash was riding dirty (https://wtop.com/prince-william-county/2021/03/woman-in-fatal-dale-city-i-95-crash-was-considered-a-fugitive/).
"...at speeds of up to 80 mph"
Or as some people would say...that slow?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2021, 11:44:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2021, 10:55:32 AM
As we suspected, the woman who caused that crash was riding dirty (https://wtop.com/prince-william-county/2021/03/woman-in-fatal-dale-city-i-95-crash-was-considered-a-fugitive/).
"...at speeds of up to 80 mph"
Or as some people would say...that slow?
What's so stupid is, you'd think if you know you're a fugitive or otherwise in trouble with the law, you'd make an effort to obey the traffic laws and not stand out. But I guess people like her aren't known for common sense in the first place. Damn shame she had to kill the man in the pickup to prove her stupidity, though.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2021, 11:46:34 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2021, 11:44:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2021, 10:55:32 AM
As we suspected, the woman who caused that crash was riding dirty (https://wtop.com/prince-william-county/2021/03/woman-in-fatal-dale-city-i-95-crash-was-considered-a-fugitive/).
"...at speeds of up to 80 mph"
Or as some people would say...that slow?
What's so stupid is, you'd think if you know you're a fugitive or otherwise in trouble with the law, you'd make an effort to obey the traffic laws and not stand out. But I guess people like her aren't known for common sense in the first place. Damn shame she had to kill the man in the pickup to prove her stupidity, though.
I had not been in Prince William County for many months (not in the eastern part of the county near I-95 since COVID19 got going) and that night, I had to drive from Silver Spring to Potomac Mills to meet a friend for dinner.
So I took MD-200 to its west end, then south on I-270, I-270Y, I-495 and 495Express, all with no trouble (though there was a crash on 495Express at I-66 blocking a lane with no delay), then south on 95Express from Springfield. That worked well until coming over the Occoquan River, when it was obvious that there was effectively a hard stop just beyond VA-123 (traffic was being forced out of 95Express at VA-294, Prince William Parkway, my intended destination).
So I worked my way around, and it was not as bad as I was anticipating, taking VA-123 (that alone was badly jammed), Old Bridge, Minnieville, Telegraph and then VA-294 to Worth, the north entrance to Potomac Mills.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2021, 11:46:34 AM
What's so stupid is, you'd think if you know you're a fugitive or otherwise in trouble with the law, you'd make an effort to obey the traffic laws and not stand out. But I guess people like her aren't known for common sense in the first place. Damn shame she had to kill the man in the pickup to prove her stupidity, though.
As a regular guest of the former show Live P.D. would often say, "it's not the smart ones that they catch"...
I was driving I-95 SB overnight last night through the ongoing C/D Road Project, and I thought it was odd that the PCMS was stating for "All Route 17 Traffic" to exit at Exit 133 while US 17 SB comes onto I-95 SB there. It probably is a non-issue, but I still think it is a bit misleading.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 09, 2021, 07:31:33 AM
I was driving I-95 SB overnight last night through the ongoing C/D Road Project, and I thought it was odd that the PCMS was stating for "All Route 17 Traffic" to exit at Exit 133 while US 17 SB comes onto I-95 SB there. It probably is a non-issue, but I still think it is a bit misleading.
It is since they took down the sign that says US 17 SOUTH straight ahead during construction. The misleading scheme is propagated at the bottom of the ramp with no BUSINESS banner on the 17 SOUTH left trailblazer and no indication that 17 SOUTH is straight ahead (under this temp configuration you can go straight and get right back on 95-17 south).
If you do get misled and follow US 17 Business, you will eventually come to a point in Fredericksburg where there are missing US 17 postings to follow the route (although it is worse NB).
VDOT's signing of the US-17 multiplex on I-95 thru Fredericksburg is spotty. Despite new signing, there is still zero mention of it at the VA-3 on-ramps at Exit 130.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 09, 2021, 05:08:39 PM
VDOT's signing of the US-17 multiplex on I-95 thru Fredericksburg is spotty. Despite new signing, there is still zero mention of it at the VA-3 on-ramps at Exit 130.
Yes, its as if they haven't really decided to multiplex it properly. More like they just want 17 Thru Traffic to use 95 but want 17 to maintain its route through downtown Fredericksburg without calling it a business route (though some signage of that does exist). Could be some local politics at play, not sure.
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2021, 06:03:13 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 09, 2021, 05:08:39 PM
VDOT's signing of the US-17 multiplex on I-95 thru Fredericksburg is spotty. Despite new signing, there is still zero mention of it at the VA-3 on-ramps at Exit 130.
Yes, its as if they haven't really decided to multiplex it properly. More like they just want 17 Thru Traffic to use 95 but want 17 to maintain its route through downtown Fredericksburg without calling it a business route (though some signage of that does exist). Could be some local politics at play, not sure.
Unlikely, given multiple turns in both directions on 17 Bus have no 17 signage of any kind within the City of Fredericksburg; there are also a couple stray US 17 signs as if it followed US 1's bypass of Fredericksburg, which it has never done.
More likely a VDOT District thing.
VA 100 is not identified from VA 99 or the Draper exit (District 2).
Fredericksburg is District 6
District 1 (US 58/I-81 and US 11/I-81) the routes are mostly identified
District 8 (US 60/I-64 twice) the routes are mostly identified
District 4 (US 460/I-85) is a mixed bag
District 5 (VA 33/I-64) is identified
WTOP Radio: Plans to extend I-495 Express toll lanes to the American Legion Bridge pass important federal review (https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/07/plans-to-extend-i-495-express-toll-lanes-to-the-american-legion-bridge-pass-important-federal-review/)
Is there any way to get historic pricing on the HOT lanes? Looks like the current website removed that function or hid it well. Last time I was on the I-95 HOT lanes I could've swore the toll was lower then what I was charged, but would like to confirm.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 24, 2021, 02:41:34 PM
Is there any way to get historic pricing on the HOT lanes? Looks like the current website removed that function or hid it well. Last time I was on the I-95 HOT lanes I could've swore the toll was lower then what I was charged, but would like to confirm.
It appears to no longer be accessible anywhere. I tried web archive but the calendar feature doesn't work on that page.
One thing to note that for some entrances it is possible to enter the lanes with a posted price at/near the entrance but the price changes before you reach the first toll gantry.
Another potential way to have a question for a non-local is that if you enter I-95 Express Lanes SB from either direction on the beltway you pass through the tail end of a toll segment that people don't always realize which is usually $2-3 before reaching the Springfield to Dale City segment
I got on in Woodbridge at Exit 161 and exited at the Dale City crossover. So, one segment.
VDOT will initiate an environmental study to extend the HO/T lanes on I-95/I-495 along the southside of the Beltway from the Springfield Interchange (I-95/I-395/I-495), across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, to MD-210 in Maryland.
Alternatives will include a no build option, one express lane in each direction, and two express lanes in each direction (consistent with the current design west of I-395). All options will "reserve a lane for transit in each direction on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge".
VDOT Announces I-495 Southside Express Lanes Study (https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/northern-virginia/2021/vdot-announces-i-495-southside-express-lanes-study12-2-2021.asp)
QuoteRichmond — As the northern Virginia region readies itself for more than 90 miles of express lanes by the end of 2022, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other federal, state and local agencies in Virginia and Maryland, will initiate an environmental study to potentially extend the Express Lanes System on the Capital Beltway, from the Springfield interchange (I-95/I-395/I-495) by approximately 11 miles to MD 210 in Prince George's County, Maryland. This was identified in the Commonwealth Transportation Board's adopted I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan as an area for additional study.
"The express lanes are expected to provide additional travel choices, and to provide a key component of the overall transportation network in the region," said Virginia Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine. "This segment of the Capital Beltway will provide an opportunity to expand a regional system that already provides key components of the transit system, connecting activity centers with dedicated access points to transit hubs."
The environmental study — which is included in VDOT's current Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) and also included the National Capital Region's Visualize 2045 Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) — will evaluate a one-lane express lanes alternative, a two-lane express lanes alternative, a no build alternative, and be informed by agency and public input. All options in the study will reserve a lane for transit in each direction on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
The Woodrow Wilson Bridge fully opened to traffic in December 2008. The design of the bridge included additional space for future transportation needs, and was designed to accommodate future rail across the bridge.
This study will be informed by a Transit and Transportation Demand Management Study to be initiated by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) and coordinated with the Maryland Transit Administration.
In the coming weeks and months VDOT will begin to gather information for the study and to coordinate with key stakeholders, agencies, organizations, and the public.
So would they convert the existing express lanes along the bridge to toll?
Quote from: famartin on December 02, 2021, 06:50:15 PM
So would they convert the existing express lanes along the bridge to toll?
I'm not sure how the bridge would be dealt with. There's only currently room for one additional lane in each direction. It would certainly receive significant public opposition and backlash, along with cause more issues than help, if they were to fully convert all the "through" lanes into HO/T lanes. That's all existing, free, well utilized capacity that would be taken away, reducing the general purpose lanes on an extremely busy section of I-95 and the Beltway to a mere 2 in each direction, along with an auxiliary lane.
Inside shoulder on the WWB Express Lanes is wide enough for another lane plus retaining a full shoulder. With a design variance, they could squeeze in two.
Bridge isn't the problem. It's the taper on the Maryland side that will be the problem.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2021, 06:48:09 PM
Alternatives will include...one express lane in each direction....
The sooner they can eliminate this option, the better. There's always gonna be that one person that decides 5 below the limit is safer, and that'll destroy an entire rush hour.
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2021, 08:36:18 PM
Inside shoulder on the WWB Express Lanes is wide enough for another lane plus retaining a full shoulder. With a design variance, they could squeeze in two.
The inside shoulder is only roughly 16-18 feet, meaning you could fit in at best a lane and a 4-6 ft left shoulder.
Any 2nd HO/T lane addition would require eliminating some of the general purpose right shoulder along with reducing at least the HO/T lanes lane width to 11 ft as was done on I-395 and I-95 on their 3 lane reversible segments. That might be feasible though for them, given VDOT is planning to reduce the general purpose shoulder on I-64 in Norfolk to 2 ft on either side to accommodate HO/T lanes... :rolleyes:
I wondered when they would start exploring this end of the Beltway. Our district's past member of the Board of Supervisors, Dana Kauffman (two supervisors ago now–he was succeeded by Jeff McKay around 2007 or 2009; McKay is now Chairman and Rodney Lusk is the new supervisor), used to call this end of the Beltway the "forgotten portion."
It seems to me that converting the existing "Thru" lanes on the Beltway entirely to HO/T would massively defeat the purpose of the way the road is designed through that area. Segregating the local traffic that's exiting and entering from the long-distance traffic that just wants to pass through the area was a major motivation for the current design. It still backs up heading to Maryland in the evenings even with the new design, although the backups are far less severe than they used to be. (Once upon a time the backups would regularly stretch to Van Dorn Street. That seldom happens anymore unless there's a wreck.)
If they decided to proceed (and I have little doubt they will), I'll be keenly interested in how they configure the interchanges and other connections. The Van Dorn Street interchange could use a rebuild anyway, so maybe this will provide the opportunity to do that. It's only had two significant changes since it was originally built in the 1960s (the wider Beltway doesn't count, IMO, because the basic interchange design didn't change)–at some point a new ramp was added from northbound Van Dorn to the Outer Loop to eliminate the need to wait for a left turn, and at some point an "authorized vehicles only" ramp was added to access the salt dome on the Inner Loop side (I used that ramp once to look at new signage waiting to be posted, but there was a cop there so I had to leave quickly). The big problem with the Van Dorn interchange is the exit to Van Dorn–the ramps from both loops merge and traffic has to criss-cross in a relatively short area depending on which way you're going on Van Dorn.
I was thinking it might be easier (assuming they want to keep a free through-lanes concept) to use the existing through lanes as the toll lanes and newly created lanes become the free through lanes.
But my other thought is the only way people will willingly use the toll lanes when a free express path remains available is if the toll lanes are the only way to access some of the exits while a free option bypasses ALL exits. This concept also makes having to modify interchanges less complicated.
I think the answer to Froggie's post about the Maryland side convergence depends on how likely or soon toll lanes might be extended further into PG County. If the innermost lanes become the toll lanes I think you can make a setup where the left lane becomes a ramp directly to MD 210 and the right lane merges into the newly created through lane(s) that would take over the last bit of existing express lanes to its ultimate merge back to the mainline beltway.
^ That ramp would more likely go to 295 than 210. Such a ramp was part of the WWB plan but was deferred. The extra width on the Express Lane inside shoulder at the east end of the bridge will be part of the acceleration/deceleration lanes for those ramps when they're built.
QuoteVDOT plans to add toll option to Seminary Road/I-395 interchange return
Quotehttps://www.alxnow.com/2021/12/03/vdot-plans-to-add-toll-option-to-seminary-road-i-395-interchange-return/
This is the ramp which connects 395 HO/T lanes to Seminary Road at the Mark Center in West Alexandria. For reasons, this ramp is HOV only, although I have no idea how this rule would be enforced. This administrative change would formally allow toll users of the HO/T lanes to use this ramp to access Seminary Rd northbound in the morning, and 395 south in the afternoons.
Jeff McKay, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County, isn't too thrilled with the reversible express lane system on I-95 and cites that as a cautionary aspect in discussing the proposed HO/T lane extension between Springfield and the Wilson Bridge. While he makes some valid points (other than his annoying misuse of the word "fail" when he meant "failure"), to some extent the I-95 complaint is a bit of a sideshow or distraction because I believe the tentative proposals for this end of the Beltway involve extending the existing bi-directional HO/T lanes east, not constructing a reversible carriageway.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/expansion-of-express-lanes-on-beltway-debated/2916438/
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 22, 2021, 08:30:47 AM
Jeff McKay, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County, isn't too thrilled with the reversible express lane system on I-95 and cites that as a cautionary aspect in discussing the proposed HO/T lane extension between Springfield and the Wilson Bridge. While he makes some valid points (other than his annoying misuse of the word "fail" when he meant "failure"), to some extent the I-95 complaint is a bit of a sideshow or distraction because I believe the tentative proposals for this end of the Beltway involve extending the existing bi-directional HO/T lanes east, not constructing a reversible carriageway.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/expansion-of-express-lanes-on-beltway-debated/2916438/
Quote"I do think the toll pricing is out of control," Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff McKay said. "I've been pretty consistently saying that for a long time."
This means he doesn't understand the point in keeping them free-flowing. They can limit the toll, but then they'll have congestion, defeating the goal of the tolled lanes free-flowing "promise".
During my limited experience on the 95 toll lanes, traffic flows fast enough for a State Trooper to monitor speeds, although the allowance is substantial. I know I was seen doing around 79-81 in a 65, and the trooper didn't even glance.
I've yet to travel the Beltway toll lanes.
I travel the Beltway lanes and the I-395 lanes more often than the I-95 lanes simply because I don't often have much reason to head south. I find the dynamic tolling seems to work pretty well, at least during peak hours when the congestion is more likely to be an issue. There have been multiple times during either the morning or afternoon rush hour when I've been doing 70 mph in the express lanes (being passed by other drivers, which is fine) and the general-purpose lanes to my right are at a complete standstill. If people think the toll is too high and opt not to use those lanes, then the system is working the way it's supposed to work.
(For what it's worth, three of our last four trips on the express lanes had no toll because my mom was with us.)
I use both 495 and 95 toll lanes daily when coming to work on-site, which has returned to 4 days a week.
I can drive 70 mph throughout 95% of the time in the afternoon (roughly 5 to 545). one thing I noticed two weeks ago is that the last segment of 95 south was $21 one day and it was still wide open the whole length (this is generally not true when 495 lanes are this high). So I still wonder if the algorithm uses congestion on the main lanes (of which there was plenty) as part of its pricing determination.
I don't like the idea of extending the HOT lanes to the WW Bridge. Just add GP lanes, it'll be a much better transition between the existing HOT lanes and the Local/Thru lanes approaching the bridge.
Quote from: plain on December 22, 2021, 06:34:53 PM
I don't like the idea of extending the HOT lanes to the WW Bridge. Just add GP lanes, it'll be a much better transition between the existing HOT lanes and the Local/Thru lanes approaching the bridge.
Being there's no money to widen the highway for free, some sort of tolling needs to take place.
IMO, I'd like to see them prioritizing a project to construct a second HO/T carriageway heading south of I-495 in order to allow the HO/T lanes to operate bi-directionally.
General purpose widening both directions of I-95 through Woodbridge at the minimum would also help to ease congestion at some of the choke points.
Express lanes extension to Fredericksburg completion date delayed...
Per recent Washington Post article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/12/20/virginia-express-lanes-fredericksburg-delayed/) (subscription may be necessary to see whole article)
QuoteA 10-mile extension of the 95 Express Lanes in Northern Virginia is behind schedule as the project is entangled in a contractual dispute over soil conditions that has slowed construction.
Work on the $565 million project to bring high-occupancy toll lanes to Fredericksburg began in 2019 and was expected to be finished in October 2022. But officials with the Virginia Department of Transportation and toll operator Transurban said the roadway expansion will take longer to complete.
I did notice the 2nd overpass that was supposed to be replaced (SR 627) has not yet started and it was originally supposed to immediately follow the SR 652 overpass replacement which has been open for months.
I'm not familiar with this area so sorry if this is the wrong thread but I came across this news article and thought I'd share:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/12/24/virginia-express-lanes-wilson-bridge/
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2021, 07:59:32 PM
IMO, I'd like to see them prioritizing a project to construct a second HO/T carriageway heading south of I-495 in order to allow the HO/T lanes to operate bi-directionally.
General purpose widening both directions of I-95 through Woodbridge at the minimum would also help to ease congestion at some of the choke points.
Shame they could not do like I-15 in San Diego....3 lane with zipper barrier, 2 lanes in peak flow, one in contraflow.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on December 29, 2021, 02:38:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2021, 07:59:32 PM
IMO, I'd like to see them prioritizing a project to construct a second HO/T carriageway heading south of I-495 in order to allow the HO/T lanes to operate bi-directionally.
General purpose widening both directions of I-95 through Woodbridge at the minimum would also help to ease congestion at some of the choke points.
Shame they could not do like I-15 in San Diego....3 lane with zipper barrier, 2 lanes in peak flow, one in contraflow.
The traffic volumes are heavy enough on I-95, it warrants at least 2 HO/T lanes in each direction.
Expansion of Express Lanes on Beltway Debated (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/expansion-of-express-lanes-on-beltway-debated/2916438/)
Quote Virginia is considering expanding express toll lanes on the Beltway from the Springfield interchange, through Alexandria and across the Wilson Bridge to the National Harbor area, but local leaders are cautioning the tolls and planning be done correctly.
The cost of tolls along express lanes in Northern Virginia can be sky high.
"I do think the toll pricing is out of control," Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff McKay said. "I've been pretty consistently saying that for a long time."
He also believes they can be set up the wrong way. In his opinion, the express lanes along the Interstate 95 corridor may not always go the way drivers need them to go.
Transportation Reporter Adam Tuss and the News4 team are covering you down on the roads and in transit.
"I think the biggest colossal fail of toll lanes in probably the history of Virginia, maybe in the country, was building one directional toll lanes on I-95," he said. "Talk about an inequity, that's the inequity of all time."
"I-95 has cemented poor planning, in my mind, for a long time in the 95 corridor because our transportation planners decided that forever people will commute in one direction in the morning and one direction in the evening," he added. "And I've got news for you — that wasn't happening on 95 before COVID and it's not going to happen on 95 ever because it's backed up in both directions."
Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chair-at-Large Ann Wheeler says if these projects are coming, pandemic traffic levels allow for the construction.
"At the moment, it's not a bad time to necessarily do it because people are in their houses, so there is some benefit to that," she said.
These are the same type of toll lanes Maryland is considering for its side of the Beltway and Interstate 270.
Another I-95 express lanes project in Northern Virginia has hit a roadblock. A contractual dispute is delaying the 10-mile extension of express lanes south to Fredericksburg. It was expected to be finished by October, but the Virginia Department of Transportation says the toll operator and a contractor are in arbitration and working to reach an agreement over costs and the project's timeline.
^^^^
As I said further up the thread:
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 22, 2021, 08:30:47 AM
Jeff McKay, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County, isn't too thrilled with the reversible express lane system on I-95 and cites that as a cautionary aspect in discussing the proposed HO/T lane extension between Springfield and the Wilson Bridge. While he makes some valid points (other than his annoying misuse of the word "fail" when he meant "failure"), to some extent the I-95 complaint is a bit of a sideshow or distraction because I believe the tentative proposals for this end of the Beltway involve extending the existing bi-directional HO/T lanes east, not constructing a reversible carriageway.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/expansion-of-express-lanes-on-beltway-debated/2916438/
Certainly I think he's right that there isn't enough flexibility allowed so as to permit reversal at nonstandard times when traffic loads demand it or for days with nonstandard traffic flow, other than perhaps Inauguration Day every four years (which is rare enough not to count). But I still think the comments are a sideshow when it comes to the Beltway because there is almost certainly zero chance of reversible lanes being constructed there. Reversible lanes wouldn't make any sense between Springfield and the Wilson Bridge anyway, regardless of one's opinions about I-95.
Don't see this very often at all.
https://twitter.com/WTOPtraffic/status/1478044849119105032
Now expected to open December 2023:
QuoteThe new timeline comes months after the Virginia Department of Transportation and Transurban said the project was caught up in a contractual dispute over soil conditions. That dispute has been settled and construction of the new toll lanes is now 60 percent complete, on pace for opening in December 2023, the toll operator said.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/05/02/95-express-lanes-virginia/
I don't want the Southside Beltway lanes to be built
Quote from: epzik8 on May 13, 2022, 06:41:16 PM
I don't want the Southside Beltway lanes to be built
Why
95 needs to have BI directional HOT lanes.
^ Not going to happen without some significant (i.e. ten digits) ROW acquisition and construction. There are choke points at both Newington and Woodbridge.
Or, you could avoid the ROW acquisition but that would require using general purpose lane space to fit bi-directional HO/T lanes in. Bet that would go over well with drivers...
^ Elevated express lanes? They've been used other places where right of way acquisition was an issue.
^ Still need places for the bridge supports. Would also be significantly complicated (and very high) at Franconia Rd given the existing (and already complicated) overpasses there. And would still result in a 10-digit construction cost.
There's a big noise impact on the surrounding communities too. Soundwalls would be needed. Then there's the visual obstruction soundwalls cause.
With these "lifestyle" issues, it's almost easier to install a tunnel than a 2nd/3rd/4th level roadway corridor. And combined with the cost, it's why you don't often see these multi-level corridors built.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 21, 2022, 04:05:46 PM
There's a big noise impact on the surrounding communities too. Soundwalls would be needed. Then there's the visual obstruction soundwalls cause.
With these "lifestyle" issues, it's almost easier to install a tunnel than a 2nd/3rd/4th level roadway corridor. And combined with the cost, it's why you don't often see these multi-level corridors built.
Which is exactly what they should do like they should have done in Syracuse but apparently the USA can't build tunnels anymore even though countries like New Zealand can.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 21, 2022, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 21, 2022, 04:05:46 PM
There's a big noise impact on the surrounding communities too. Soundwalls would be needed. Then there's the visual obstruction soundwalls cause.
With these "lifestyle" issues, it's almost easier to install a tunnel than a 2nd/3rd/4th level roadway corridor. And combined with the cost, it's why you don't often see these multi-level corridors built.
Which is exactly what they should do like they should have done in Syracuse but apparently the USA can't build tunnels anymore even though countries like New Zealand can.
The US does build tunnels when it's the preferred option. In fact, we may even have more tunnels than New Zealand.
Besides - New Zealand is one of about 200 countries in the world. No matter what, other countries do what the US doesn't do, and the US does things that other countries don't do.
Quote from: froggie on May 21, 2022, 08:28:30 AM
^ Not going to happen without some significant (i.e. ten digits) ROW acquisition and construction. There are choke points at both Newington and Woodbridge.
Or, you could avoid the ROW acquisition but that would require using general purpose lane space to fit bi-directional HO/T lanes in. Bet that would go over well with drivers...
I disagree, it can be done. They did in NJ with TP and that is a lot more built up.
Can be and will be are two different things. The state has already spent boatloads of $$$ in NOVA & Hampton Roads, finding even more money is what's going to be the challenge for anything else.
Even still the HOT lanes doesn't really need to be 2-way south of the Beltway, as most of the employment centers are either inside the Beltway or just outside of it. There aren't that many people commuting from Arlington/Fairfax/etc to Fredericksburg for work.
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:09:17 PM
Can be and will be are two different things. The state has already spent boatloads of $$$ in NOVA & Hampton Roads, finding even more money is what's going to be the challenge for anything else.
Even still the HOT lanes doesn't really need to be 2-way south of the Beltway, as most of the employment centers are either inside the Beltway or just outside of it. There aren't that many people commuting from Arlington/Fairfax/etc to Fredericksburg for work.
There are often delays on weekends when two-way traffic on the HOT lanes would be very useful.
Quote from: famartin on May 22, 2022, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:09:17 PM
Can be and will be are two different things. The state has already spent boatloads of $$$ in NOVA & Hampton Roads, finding even more money is what's going to be the challenge for anything else.
Even still the HOT lanes doesn't really need to be 2-way south of the Beltway, as most of the employment centers are either inside the Beltway or just outside of it. There aren't that many people commuting from Arlington/Fairfax/etc to Fredericksburg for work.
There are often delays on weekends when two-way traffic on the HOT lanes would be very useful.
Yes, but a GP lane in each direction would be more helpful.
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 22, 2022, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:09:17 PM
Can be and will be are two different things. The state has already spent boatloads of $$$ in NOVA & Hampton Roads, finding even more money is what's going to be the challenge for anything else.
Even still the HOT lanes doesn't really need to be 2-way south of the Beltway, as most of the employment centers are either inside the Beltway or just outside of it. There aren't that many people commuting from Arlington/Fairfax/etc to Fredericksburg for work.
There are often delays on weekends when two-way traffic on the HOT lanes would be very useful.
Yes, but a GP lane in each direction would be more helpful.
Pretty sure the chance of that is about zero.
Quote from: famartin on May 22, 2022, 10:03:16 PM
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 22, 2022, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:09:17 PM
Can be and will be are two different things. The state has already spent boatloads of $$$ in NOVA & Hampton Roads, finding even more money is what's going to be the challenge for anything else.
Even still the HOT lanes doesn't really need to be 2-way south of the Beltway, as most of the employment centers are either inside the Beltway or just outside of it. There aren't that many people commuting from Arlington/Fairfax/etc to Fredericksburg for work.
There are often delays on weekends when two-way traffic on the HOT lanes would be very useful.
Yes, but a GP lane in each direction would be more helpful.
Pretty sure the chance of that is about zero.
Why is that? Is Virginia not adding GP lanes anymore in urban areas?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 22, 2022, 10:17:44 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 22, 2022, 10:03:16 PM
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 22, 2022, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:09:17 PM
Can be and will be are two different things. The state has already spent boatloads of $$$ in NOVA & Hampton Roads, finding even more money is what's going to be the challenge for anything else.
Even still the HOT lanes doesn't really need to be 2-way south of the Beltway, as most of the employment centers are either inside the Beltway or just outside of it. There aren't that many people commuting from Arlington/Fairfax/etc to Fredericksburg for work.
There are often delays on weekends when two-way traffic on the HOT lanes would be very useful.
Yes, but a GP lane in each direction would be more helpful.
Pretty sure the chance of that is about zero.
Why is that? Is Virginia not adding GP lanes anymore in urban areas?
Seems to be the trend nowadays.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2021, 09:48:09 AM
During my limited experience on the 95 toll lanes, traffic flows fast enough for a State Trooper to monitor speeds, although the allowance is substantial. I know I was seen doing around 79-81 in a 65, and the trooper didn't even glance.
I've yet to travel the Beltway toll lanes.
The troopers are pretty much there to catch HOV and truck restriction violations rather than deal with sub-misdemeanor (>85mph) speeding tickets.
I think I've seen more semi's get pulled over in the HOT lanes than actual cars.
Continuation of the HOT lanes on the last 2 miles of the Beltway (Dulles Toll Road to GWPkwy) gets under way this month. The "green arrow/red X lane" (otherwise known as the inside shoulder) closed a few days ago to allow for work in the median to commence. www.495next.org has details.
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:34:01 PM
Yes, but a GP lane in each direction would be more helpful.
Quote from: famartin on May 22, 2022, 10:03:16 PM
Pretty sure the chance of that is about zero.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 22, 2022, 10:17:44 PM
Why is that? Is Virginia not adding GP lanes anymore in urban areas?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2022, 10:56:00 PM
Seems to be the trend nowadays.
It's been a while since I was directly involved with a similar situation, but FHWA has a longstanding regulation that restricts the use of Federal funds for additional general purpose lanes when [fill in the blank]. It is my understanding that the [blank] is related to approval of the Environmental Impact Statement, where the primary issues are related to the Council on Environmental Quality recommendations for additional pollutants and additional noise. On the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) side, we were looking at 30 year window, so I would presume FHWA has a similar long-term outlook. Back in the 1990s, there were two primary ways that allowed construction of additional lanes when the EIS wouldn't permit GP lanes: (1) HOV lanes; and (2) Toll lanes. Today, we also have that hybrid: (3) HOT lanes. These options forcibly reduce the long-term capacity of the additional lanes to allow the EIS to be acceptable.
For the record, the FHWA is still using an Environmental Review process developed in October 1987, whereas the FTA is using an Environment Review process last updated in September 2015.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 22, 2022, 10:17:44 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 22, 2022, 10:03:16 PM
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 22, 2022, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2022, 09:09:17 PM
Can be and will be are two different things. The state has already spent boatloads of $$$ in NOVA & Hampton Roads, finding even more money is what's going to be the challenge for anything else.
Even still the HOT lanes doesn't really need to be 2-way south of the Beltway, as most of the employment centers are either inside the Beltway or just outside of it. There aren't that many people commuting from Arlington/Fairfax/etc to Fredericksburg for work.
There are often delays on weekends when two-way traffic on the HOT lanes would be very useful.
Yes, but a GP lane in each direction would be more helpful.
Pretty sure the chance of that is about zero.
Why is that? Is Virginia not adding GP lanes anymore in urban areas?
I believe VA cannot add a GP lane on 95 where the HOT lanes are without having to potentially compensate the vender of the HOT lanes since in theory adding another GP lane would reduce congestion thereby reducing demand and revenue. Great contract.
https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/panel-more-express-lanes-need-to-be-part-of-n-va-transportation-mix/article_c417f426-06af-11ed-96f7-5bbfd6a9d0ed.html
QuoteNorthern Virginia has been transformed for the last decade by Express Lanes projects and regional leaders say more of the same is needed — including over the Potomac River and into Maryland — if the metropolitan area is to continue thriving.
Virginia has 62 miles of Express Lanes in service on Interstates 95, 495, 66 and 395 and now are building 33 miles more, including 22.5 miles on I-66 outside the Beltway and 2.5 miles for the 495 NEXT project in McLean, said John Lynch, Northern Virginia District engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Panelists discussed the situation July 14 at "Shaping the Region: Past, Present and Future of Express Lanes," a Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance (NVTA) program held July 14 at the Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce in Tysons.
QuoteVDOT hopes some existing Express Lanes on I-95 can be converted from reversible-direction to bidirectional, allowing traffic headed both ways to use them throughout the day, Long said.
McKay hoped that could be accomplished, saying he from the start had called the reversible lanes there an "enormous missed opportunity." VDOT officials also are conducting environmental studies, due to be competed in early 2024, about building Express Lanes on the south side of the Beltway connecting them across the Potomac in Maryland. Both spans of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge include space for future transit options, officials said. High housing costs also are a major challenge facing the region, whose leaders either must concentrate dwellings in the area's core or keep spreading out as in years past, Clower said.
I am really interested how the heck VDOT plans design-wise to turn the I-95 express lanes bi-directional. Very needed for sure. However, the only feasible idea that I've heard so far was to turn the GP lane's left shoulder of whatever direction the express lanes are not pointed in into a part time express lane. Even then, entrance and exit points could be nightmare. The ultimate design of the proposed southside express lanes will also be interesting to a lesser extent.
^ It would be more costly, but the ultimate design for I-95 needs to be 2 express lanes in each direction. None of this shoulder stuff should be implemented, there's just too much traffic for a single lane to be adequate at any time in each direction.
Why do they keep talking about HOT lanes across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge? Aren't there already express lanes there (albeit free)?
Quote from: vdeane on July 18, 2022, 09:50:55 PM
Why do they keep talking about HOT lanes across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge? Aren't there already express lanes there (albeit free)?
The Express Lane carriageways on the bridge were built wide enough to accommodate either a 3rd lane (at the time, presuming HOV) or rail transit. Design also accommodates potential future ramps between the bridge Express Lanes and I-295 (via the wider median at both spots) and from the Express Lanes to US 1 (note the gap in the median curb in the middle of the US 1 overpass).
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 18, 2022, 03:30:48 PM
https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/panel-more-express-lanes-need-to-be-part-of-n-va-transportation-mix/article_c417f426-06af-11ed-96f7-5bbfd6a9d0ed.html
QuoteNorthern Virginia has been transformed for the last decade by Express Lanes projects and regional leaders say more of the same is needed — including over the Potomac River and into Maryland — if the metropolitan area is to continue thriving.
Virginia has 62 miles of Express Lanes in service on Interstates 95, 495, 66 and 395 and now are building 33 miles more, including 22.5 miles on I-66 outside the Beltway and 2.5 miles for the 495 NEXT project in McLean, said John Lynch, Northern Virginia District engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Panelists discussed the situation July 14 at "Shaping the Region: Past, Present and Future of Express Lanes," a Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance (NVTA) program held July 14 at the Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce in Tysons.
QuoteVDOT hopes some existing Express Lanes on I-95 can be converted from reversible-direction to bidirectional, allowing traffic headed both ways to use them throughout the day, Long said.
McKay hoped that could be accomplished, saying he from the start had called the reversible lanes there an "enormous missed opportunity." VDOT officials also are conducting environmental studies, due to be competed in early 2024, about building Express Lanes on the south side of the Beltway connecting them across the Potomac in Maryland. Both spans of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge include space for future transit options, officials said. High housing costs also are a major challenge facing the region, whose leaders either must concentrate dwellings in the area's core or keep spreading out as in years past, Clower said.
I am really interested how the heck VDOT plans design-wise to turn the I-95 express lanes bi-directional. Very needed for sure. However, the only feasible idea that I've heard so far was to turn the GP lane's left shoulder of whatever direction the express lanes are not pointed in into a part time express lane. Even then, entrance and exit points could be nightmare. The ultimate design of the proposed southside express lanes will also be interesting to a lesser extent.
Dude it's simple:
1. There is ample ROW south of 234 for bi(hehehe thats whats she said)-directional HOT lanes.
2. There is also room north of 234, though not in all spots without some taking. But we aren't talking about the Cross-Bronx which is very dense, the area is more like the 66 corrdior where that was easily done.
3. WORST case, north of 234 just go from being 3 reversible HOT to 2+2.
Quote from: froggie on July 18, 2022, 11:25:53 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 18, 2022, 09:50:55 PM
Why do they keep talking about HOT lanes across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge? Aren't there already express lanes there (albeit free)?
The Express Lane carriageways on the bridge were built wide enough to accommodate either a 3rd lane (at the time, presuming HOV) or rail transit. Design also accommodates potential future ramps between the bridge Express Lanes and I-295 (via the wider median at both spots) and from the Express Lanes to US 1 (note the gap in the median curb in the middle of the US 1 overpass).
My question is how do they plan to accommodate the standard 2 HO/T lanes each way along side the existing 4 lanes each way? Unless they either remove a general purpose lane (which would cause issues on a 2+2, or make it a single HO/T lane (which also would be too low capacity).
It might involve some creative redoing of the lanes (shoulder elimination, lane width reductions in the HO/T to 11 ft (used in other areas on the I-95/I-395 system) or slight bridge widening.
None the less, I do agree the last part of I-495 in Virginia between I-95 and the Maryland state line needs to be expanded to 4 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes in each direction.
Quote from: froggie on July 18, 2022, 11:25:53 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 18, 2022, 09:50:55 PM
Why do they keep talking about HOT lanes across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge? Aren't there already express lanes there (albeit free)?
The Express Lane carriageways on the bridge were built wide enough to accommodate either a 3rd lane (at the time, presuming HOV) or rail transit. Design also accommodates potential future ramps between the bridge Express Lanes and I-295 (via the wider median at both spots) and from the Express Lanes to US 1 (note the gap in the median curb in the middle of the US 1 overpass).
Another point to note is that the Wilson Bridge's carriageways are not denominated on the signs as "Local" and "Express" but rather as "Local" and "Thru," the latter referring to what vdeane is referring to as the "express" lanes. I remember that back when the signs first went up, I was discussing it with sometimes-forum-participant mtantillo (though we weren't discussing it on this forum, which I don't think existed yet) and he mentioned that the FHWA was trying to transition away from the use of "express lanes" as a description for lanes that simply have fewer exits in favor of using that term for "managed lanes" such as HO/T lanes. One wrinkle is that the use of "Thru" precludes, as a practical matter, the use of the type of sign you sometimes see in New Jersey where it will have a banner saying "All Lanes Thru"–it's arguably contradictory or confusing to post one carriageway as "Thru" and then say "All Lanes Thru." (I see enough people swerving across the gore points at either end of the Wilson Bridge "Local"/"Thru" setup that I've thought VDOT and MDOT ought to figure out some way to indicate that thru traffic to Baltimore or Richmond can use either carriageway. I understand that violates the intent of segregating long-distance traffic, but as a practical matter, the swerving without looking may be a bigger problem.)
Further history.... Traditionally, the reversible HOV carriageway on I-95/I-395 in Northern Virginia (which is now HO/T) was referred to locally as "the express lanes" going back to the 1970s, and there were some signs that referred to them as such (mostly older signs, as over time VDOT started signing them as the "Restricted Lanes"). Back when the I-495 HO/T lanes first opened in late 2012, WTOP traffic reporter Bob Marbourg's main concern was "what are we calling these lanes?" He refused to call them "express lanes" because that name had long referred to the I-395 HOV system, so he took to calling them the "E-ZPass Lanes." I assume, but I don't really recall whether this is right, that he used the "Thru" terminology on the Wilson Bridge as well (I may be wrong about that, and he has now retired anyway).
So to some degree, it's a matter of semantics: The highway departments do not consider there to be "express lanes" across the Wilson Bridge because in their worldview, "express lanes" refer to managed lanes that do not exist there (yet).
I'm interested in learning how, if at all, they plan to reconfigure the two interchanges between Springfield and the existing "Local"/"Thru" split. The one at Van Dorn Street could use improvement due to the problems caused by criss-crossing traffic in a very short amount of space on the ramp exiting the Beltway.
I wonder why "express lanes" came to mean the same thing as managed lanes (or HOT lanes/toll lanes as the rest of us call them) in the US. IMO, they aren't the same. One of my first experiences with the concept was actually Toronto (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7576751,-79.401829,3a,75y,227.12h,90.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKIRmurcvJPlMVXQM-BezQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Here is how I-270 signs theirs:
https://goo.gl/maps/s3zsMb2mASUJJfLY7
Further along it is more ambiguous:
https://goo.gl/maps/ZQBnDxUvNCQBRqf38 (2021)
this used be less ambiguous:
https://goo.gl/maps/RCc24GRKZvLgqZWm7 (2015)
I-95/495 would be improved if they added Baltimore underneath the Alexandria on the Local BGS approaching the split.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 19, 2022, 01:13:10 PM
....
I-95/495 would be improved if they added Baltimore underneath the Alexandria on the Local BGS approaching the split.
I agree with that and I suggested it to a couple of people at VDOT; they said they didn't want to suggest to long-distance traffic that they should add to the congestion in the "Local" lanes. Never mind that a perfectly valid way to reach Baltimore is to use said local lanes to I-295 if you want to use the BW Parkway route (and some mapping software will sometimes suggest just that due to the shorter distance, though there are plenty of reasons not to go that way if you know the roads).
Regarding I-270, mtantillo said the signage there predates the FHWA's adoption of "express" as a term for managed lanes, so that probably explains a lot. Certainly many of us in the DC area are accustomed to thinking of "express" and "local" in the sense used to refer to the trains on the New York subway (e.g., when I go to New York I take the 2/3 express from Penn Station because it's two stops to my destination versus nine stops if I take the 1 local). I-270 uses the terminology in something similar to that sense–all exits are from the local lanes. I tend to agree with vdeane that most of us were accustomed of thinking of "express lanes" in that context and the example cited in Toronto is consistent with that.
Is it feasible to go 3 hot lanes with a zipper 2 with rush, one contraflow similar to what is done on 15 in San Diego
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 19, 2022, 04:37:43 PM
Is it feasible to go 3 hot lanes with a zipper 2 with rush, one contraflow similar to what is done on 15 in San Diego
That's sort of what the shoulder proposal would be, there would be a HO/T shoulder in each direction that would open up in the off peak direction while the existing reversible would handle the peak direction.
That is what is going to be implemented over the next few years on I-64 in Norfolk where the existing reversible lanes are, and what I believe is proposed for I-95.
The problem with I-95 is that peak directions seem to be both ways especially on busy weekends, that warrants a full 2+2 HO/T buildout.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 19, 2022, 03:58:18 PM
Regarding I-270, mtantillo said the signage there predates the FHWA's adoption of "express" as a term for managed lanes, so that probably explains a lot. Certainly many of us in the DC area are accustomed to thinking of "express" and "local" in the sense used to refer to the trains on the New York subway (e.g., when I go to New York I take the 2/3 express from Penn Station because it's two stops to my destination versus nine stops if I take the 1 local). I-270 uses the terminology in something similar to that sense–all exits are from the local lanes. I tend to agree with vdeane that most of us were accustomed of thinking of "express lanes" in that context and the example cited in Toronto is consistent with that.
I think I missed something: When did FHWA officially adopt "express" for only managed lanes?
Is there a new term FHWA want used for current "express" lanes that are not managed? Other examples I can think of that are signed using express:
* I-80 in Council Bluffs, Iowa (https://goo.gl/maps/urrPVjkSz6KeqqWP9)
* I-90/I-90/Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago (https://goo.gl/maps/mTWtyzsvHHgBKmdS7)
* I-70 and I-44 in St. Louis (https://goo.gl/maps/qYwMHdftKZX87LzU9)
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 19, 2022, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 19, 2022, 01:13:10 PM
....
I-95/495 would be improved if they added Baltimore underneath the Alexandria on the Local BGS approaching the split.
I agree with that and I suggested it to a couple of people at VDOT; they said they didn't want to suggest to long-distance traffic that they should add to the congestion in the "Local" lanes. Never mind that a perfectly valid way to reach Baltimore is to use said local lanes to I-295 if you want to use the BW Parkway route (and some mapping software will sometimes suggest just that due to the shorter distance, though there are plenty of reasons not to go that way if you know the roads).
Regarding I-270, mtantillo said the signage there predates the FHWA's adoption of "express" as a term for managed lanes, so that probably explains a lot. Certainly many of us in the DC area are accustomed to thinking of "express" and "local" in the sense used to refer to the trains on the New York subway (e.g., when I go to New York I take the 2/3 express from Penn Station because it's two stops to my destination versus nine stops if I take the 1 local). I-270 uses the terminology in something similar to that sense–all exits are from the local lanes. I tend to agree with vdeane that most of us were accustomed of thinking of "express lanes" in that context and the example cited in Toronto is consistent with that.
A different solution entirely would be to have the split be on I-95 before the Springfield Interchange. This can be done with little construction on the beltway itself beyond jersey walls and a ramp would need to be constructed here (https://goo.gl/maps/xT8hJwxy3JgG9dtF8) to connect I-395 to the outer loop ramp from WB Franconia Rd. The idea would then be to sign I-95 as it is now which would be for Annapolis and Baltimore while the new ramp from 95/395 would be signed as I-495 Van Dorn St and Alexandria. Thus I-95 and I-495 would be separate on the outer loop until reaching Maryland. I-495 pull through BGSs on the Beltway can then list Baltimore so anyone who does end up there can know they don't need to figure out a plan B.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 19, 2022, 03:58:18 PM
Regarding I-270, mtantillo said the signage there predates the FHWA's adoption of "express" as a term for managed lanes, so that probably explains a lot. Certainly many of us in the DC area are accustomed to thinking of "express" and "local" in the sense used to refer to the trains on the New York subway (e.g., when I go to New York I take the 2/3 express from Penn Station because it's two stops to my destination versus nine stops if I take the 1 local). I-270 uses the terminology in something similar to that sense–all exits are from the local lanes. I tend to agree with vdeane that most of us were accustomed of thinking of "express lanes" in that context and the example cited in Toronto is consistent with that.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 19, 2022, 10:54:41 PM
I think I missed something: When did FHWA officially adopt "express" for only managed lanes?
Is there a new term FHWA want used for current "express" lanes that are not managed? Other examples I can think of that are signed using express:
* I-80 in Council Bluffs, Iowa (https://goo.gl/maps/urrPVjkSz6KeqqWP9)
* I-90/I-90/Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago (https://goo.gl/maps/mTWtyzsvHHgBKmdS7)
* I-70 and I-44 in St. Louis (https://goo.gl/maps/qYwMHdftKZX87LzU9)
You didn't miss anything, nor did 1995Hoo imply that the FHWA uses a term other than "Express Lane" for the NJTP version of "Through Lane" versus "Local Lane" (in some states they still use the term "Thru Lane"). But FHWA did accept (and acknowledge) many states use of the term "Express Lane" for managed lanes, and the MUTCD incorporated "Express Lanes End" signs to deal with related issues. In fact, the R3-42 and R3-45 signs (Express Lane Ends) are officially listed as "Priced Managed Lane Ends" in the MUTCD. But it is clear that FHWA has acknowledged that many states use the term "Express Lane" as a branding name for their managed lanes.
All that being said, there is no reason that R3-42 and R3-45 shouldn't be used for traditional "Thru Lanes".
<corrected the quotations>
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 19, 2022, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 19, 2022, 01:13:10 PM
....
I-95/495 would be improved if they added Baltimore underneath the Alexandria on the Local BGS approaching the split.
I agree with that and I suggested it to a couple of people at VDOT; they said they didn't want to suggest to long-distance traffic that they should add to the congestion in the "Local" lanes. Never mind that a perfectly valid way to reach Baltimore is to use said local lanes to I-295 if you want to use the BW Parkway route (and some mapping software will sometimes suggest just that due to the shorter distance, though there are plenty of reasons not to go that way if you know the roads).
Regarding I-270, mtantillo said the signage there predates the FHWA's adoption of "express" as a term for managed lanes, so that probably explains a lot. Certainly many of us in the DC area are accustomed to thinking of "express" and "local" in the sense used to refer to the trains on the New York subway (e.g., when I go to New York I take the 2/3 express from Penn Station because it's two stops to my destination versus nine stops if I take the 1 local). I-270 uses the terminology in something similar to that sense–all exits are from the local lanes. I tend to agree with vdeane that most of us were accustomed of thinking of "express lanes" in that context and the example cited in Toronto is consistent with that.
I won't say I've been there very often, but the times I have driven thru the area I find the express lanes more congested than the local lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 19, 2022, 04:49:13 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 19, 2022, 04:37:43 PM
Is it feasible to go 3 hot lanes with a zipper 2 with rush, one contraflow similar to what is done on 15 in San Diego
That's sort of what the shoulder proposal would be, there would be a HO/T shoulder in each direction that would open up in the off peak direction while the existing reversible would handle the peak direction.
That is what is going to be implemented over the next few years on I-64 in Norfolk where the existing reversible lanes are, and what I believe is proposed for I-95.
The problem with I-95 is that peak directions seem to be both ways especially on busy weekends, that warrants a full 2+2 HO/T buildout.
I completely agree. The drive between the Beltway down to almost Richmond seems to be horrendous at all times. Both directions need more capacity, and this can only be readily achieved with a 2-way toll lane setup. There really aren't any alternatives for travel if you are traveling in the reverse peak direction - VRE service seems to be limited to forward direction in the commute direction to DC.
3 GP + 2 Toll lanes in each direction would handle the demand along this very busy stretch of highway. 3 GP alone cannot at any time other than 1-5 a.m.
You're correct about VRE–it is a peak-direction service and it also runs only on weekdays (but not federal holidays).
Currently, yes. Increasing VRE service is the main reason for the additional train bridge over the Potomac, and also the extra track about to be added along this corridor.
And speaking of the HOT lanes, I was looking at the NEXT plans, and noticed that this project does not include the GW Pkwy interchange, but does subsume the southbound CD lanes connecting these ramps and the Georgetown Pike (VA-193) interchange. This makes sense, because there's no telling what or when MD will do something with the ALMB over the Potomac. Transurban started removing half of the VA-193 bridge last week.
Quote from: davewiecking on August 01, 2022, 08:24:25 AM
And speaking of the HOT lanes, I was looking at the NEXT plans, and noticed that this project does not include the GW Pkwy interchange, but does subsume the southbound CD lanes connecting these ramps and the Georgetown Pike (VA-193) interchange. This makes sense, because there's no telling what or when MD will do something with the ALMB over the Potomac. Transurban started removing half of the VA-193 bridge last week.
VA is moving ahead and MD is falling behind. The new MD governonr to be elected this coming November could dicatate a lot of transport policy. If the Democrat wins, I don't expect any HOT lane expansion into MD, even between 270/495 and the bridge.
There is probably no appetite for the massive land takings necessary for HOT lanes to extend along 495 to College Park, but most of the land necessary to expand lanes from the bridge to 270/Shady Grove is within the existing highway right of way. It just needs some political will. Especially given that other bridges over the Potomac are not happening, so the only relief would be HOT lanes on the bridge.
On the 11:00 news last night, Channel 4 reported that the I-395 HO/T lane ramp on the south side of the Seminary Road interchange (the high-level ramp constructed a few years ago), which is now restricted to HOV-3 traffic only at all times, will open to all traffic after Labor Day. They said non-HOV traffic will pay a toll. It wasn't clear from the report whether the toll will be a separate toll for that particular ramp or whether the ramp will just get the standard HO/T rules applicable to the rest of the reversible roadway. Either way, it makes eminent sense to make that change.
Always thought that was an odd exception to the HOT corridor. I also doubt that the "HOV-3 only" rule was ever enforced.
My unsubstantiated guess is that it was a bureaucratic vestige of the fact that the ramp was built with federal funds, relating to the opening of the Mark Center, and that perhaps the funding came with strings attached (specifically, HOV-3 only). The ramp was built before 395 was converted to HOT.
IIRC, it was a requirement of the Transportation Management Plan for Mark Center. Not sure what's changed to where this is now going to be allowed.
On second thought, an even better possibility relates to the fact that Alexandria was very concerned about the traffic impact of the opening of the Mark Center on local streets in the West End (e.g. Seminary, Beauregard, etc). Many jobs were moved from the Pentagon, which has the slug and transit commute options, to the massive building at Seminary and 395.
The retention of the HOV-3 only rule, even after the corridor was converted to HOT, may have been in order to discourage single-car commuting to the Mark Center.
Quote from: froggie on August 26, 2022, 03:28:14 PM
IIRC, it was a requirement of the Transportation Management Plan for Mark Center. Not sure what's changed to where this is now going to be allowed.
Funny that you posted it right as I made my follow up comment.
I don't think the Mark Center traffic ever materialized in a way that they envisioned it. And that was pre-COVID. Nowadays, who knows. I know that Mark Center was supposed to take on most of the WHS jobs, many of which I think are inherently telework-enabled.
So probably the oddest thing about the new set-up on I-95 SB at the Rappahannock River was that it was actually viable for me to take I-95 SB from Fredericksburg to Richmond tonight. One year ago I would have headed straight to the US 301/VA 2 corridor without much of a debate.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 23, 2022, 10:08:19 PM
So probably the oddest thing about the new set-up on I-95 SB at the Rappahannock River was that it was actually viable for me to take I-95 SB from Fredericksburg to Richmond tonight. One year ago I would have headed straight to the US 301/VA 2 corridor without much of a debate.
Was that problem (a year ago) a normal rush hour issue, or a Thanksgiving holiday traffic issue? It's now been 8 years since I had to fight that mess, but when I would brave taking I-95 it seemed like traffic was mostly free-flow (albeit intense) south of the Falmouth exit (even during holiday traffic). Whenever I was tired, I always took US-29 or US-522 (and backroads to US-360) the whole way.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 23, 2022, 10:08:19 PM
So probably the oddest thing about the new set-up on I-95 SB at the Rappahannock River was that it was actually viable for me to take I-95 SB from Fredericksburg to Richmond tonight. One year ago I would have headed straight to the US 301/VA 2 corridor without much of a debate.
I still do it, since I always travel alone, and never had a need to use the HOT lane, even when it was just the HOV lane.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 24, 2022, 11:30:51 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 23, 2022, 10:08:19 PM
So probably the oddest thing about the new set-up on I-95 SB at the Rappahannock River was that it was actually viable for me to take I-95 SB from Fredericksburg to Richmond tonight. One year ago I would have headed straight to the US 301/VA 2 corridor without much of a debate.
Was that problem (a year ago) a normal rush hour issue, or a Thanksgiving holiday traffic issue? It's now been 8 years since I had to fight that mess, but when I would brave taking I-95 it seemed like traffic was mostly free-flow (albeit intense) south of the Falmouth exit (even during holiday traffic). Whenever I was tired, I always took US-29 or US-522 (and backroads to US-360) the whole way.
Rush hour, but it was much worse with holiday traffic
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 24, 2022, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 23, 2022, 10:08:19 PM
So probably the oddest thing about the new set-up on I-95 SB at the Rappahannock River was that it was actually viable for me to take I-95 SB from Fredericksburg to Richmond tonight. One year ago I would have headed straight to the US 301/VA 2 corridor without much of a debate.
I still do it, since I always travel alone, and never had a need to use the HOT lane, even when it was just the HOV lane.
The HOT Lanes do not play a factor south of Fredericksburg whatsoever because they will not be going south of there for the time being. I usually get on I-95 SB at US 17 SB when going for time.
Of course, US 301/VA 2 mostly has very little traffic so there is that advantage with a 55 mph speed limit.
Northern Virginia Leaders Want North and South Express Lanes All Day on I-95
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/northern-virginia-leaders-want-north-and-south-express-lanes-all-day-on-i-95/3231634/
I'd love to see how they plan to squeeze that through Newington.
Yawn. Just more discussion to a conversation that never seems to end. When is construction going to start? Lol
Good luck with that.
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2022, 03:33:46 PM
I'd love to see how they plan to squeeze that through Newington.
It's going to take some creative design work or right of way take, but the fact is, it needs to happen. Those I-95 express lanes need to operate bi-directional to be fully effective.
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2022, 03:33:46 PM
I'd love to see how they plan to squeeze that through Newington.
Will NIMBYS go in a uproar if we suggest a double-decked freeway with HOT lanes elevated over I-95 in a pattern similar to what's proposed for I-35 north of San Antonio?
https://www.texashighwayman.com/i35nex.shtml
^ A double-decked freeway would be infeasible for other reasons, not the least of which being winter weather. Would also make construction more complicated and more expensive.
^ So is the end all, be all answer, impossible then? Should no further improvements be completed on I-95 south of the Beltway due to construction being complicated?
Is there a study completed that says this construction is infeasible? I'm curious to see such a document.
Even if it's technically feasible, where are you going to get the money from? Between this and other threads, you advocate zillions of widenings but zero way to pay for them. VDOT can't do it on its current budget and funding streams, not unless you want them to let the rest of the system go to rot.
Could tolls be the answer? Perhaps. But look at how many people complain about the HO/T tolls already.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2022, 01:49:07 PM
^ A double-decked freeway would be infeasible for other reasons, not the least of which being winter weather. Would also make construction more complicated and more expensive.
There may be other reasons related to cost and constructability, but there are many examples of double-decker freeways (and elevated freeways over streets below) in Northern states that have much worse weather than the Washington Metro area. Looks like we had some discussion of this back in 2020: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27695.0
^ Yes I'm aware of such, but those "worse weather" areas are better equipped to handle winter weather than the DC region.
And given this is I-95 in Virginia, last winter's debacle would be very fresh on the minds of everyone who would need to use said double-decker during the winter.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2022, 06:08:50 PM
Even if it's technically feasible, where are you going to get the money from? Between this and other threads, you advocate zillions of widenings but zero way to pay for them. VDOT can't do it on its current budget and funding streams, not unless you want them to let the rest of the system go to rot.
Could tolls be the answer? Perhaps. But look at how many people complain about the HO/T tolls already.
I'm referring to bi-directional HO/T lanes along I-95, which could be funded and completed through a public-private partnership such as Transurban.
As far as general purpose widening, while yes I do feel I-95 should be 8 lanes all the way to Richmond... I'm not expecting or even suggesting that be a "top priority." I know I've shown my opinion more in the past out of... frustration?, but I do realize it's not just possible like that, and that other priorities do also exist with limited funding. At the least, VDOT could extend the 4th southbound general purpose lane down a few exits to help the 4th lane drop nightmare at the Occoquan River. Improvements such as these, along with bi-directional HO/T lanes, would provide a significant improvement to traffic flow, without major scale general purpose widening.
If a proper agreement was worked out between Transurban and VDOT in terms of a bi-directional HO/T lanes project, that could also include extension of the 4th southbound general purpose lane for a few miles included with private funding.
It would certainly be nice to see Virginia and Maryland to work together again to study constructing an outer bypass for long distance traffic around the Washington-Baltimore metro entirely... perhaps another P3 / toll road. I feel like that might get more success than a toll-free highway that will never get built... and a toll road on that corridor would certainly get utilization if volumes on US-301 are any indication.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2022, 09:52:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2022, 03:33:46 PM
I'd love to see how they plan to squeeze that through Newington.
It's going to take some creative design work or right of way take, but the fact is, it needs to happen. Those I-95 express lanes need to operate bi-directional to be fully effective.
FINALLY, much much needed!
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2022, 03:22:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2022, 06:08:50 PM
Even if it's technically feasible, where are you going to get the money from? Between this and other threads, you advocate zillions of widenings but zero way to pay for them. VDOT can't do it on its current budget and funding streams, not unless you want them to let the rest of the system go to rot.
Could tolls be the answer? Perhaps. But look at how many people complain about the HO/T tolls already.
I'm referring to bi-directional HO/T lanes along I-95, which could be funded and completed through a public-private partnership such as Transurban.
As far as general purpose widening, while yes I do feel I-95 should be 8 lanes all the way to Richmond... I'm not expecting or even suggesting that be a "top priority." I know I've shown my opinion more in the past out of... frustration?, but I do realize it's not just possible like that, and that other priorities do also exist with limited funding. At the least, VDOT could extend the 4th southbound general purpose lane down a few exits to help the 4th lane drop nightmare at the Occoquan River. Improvements such as these, along with bi-directional HO/T lanes, would provide a significant improvement to traffic flow, without major scale general purpose widening.
If a proper agreement was worked out between Transurban and VDOT in terms of a bi-directional HO/T lanes project, that could also include extension of the 4th southbound general purpose lane for a few miles included with private funding.
It would certainly be nice to see Virginia and Maryland to work together again to study constructing an outer bypass for long distance traffic around the Washington-Baltimore metro entirely... perhaps another P3 / toll road. I feel like that might get more success than a toll-free highway that will never get built... and a toll road on that corridor would certainly get utilization if volumes on US-301 are any indication.
95 needs 4 lanes to Garrisonville.
The express need to evaluate bi-directional HOT lanes was identified by VDOT in Jan 2020. See pdf pg 53 here (https://web.archive.org/web/20210710115052/http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/easset_upload_file65013_141080_e.pdf)
Note on pdf pg. 51 they also explicitly advance the idea of a shoulder lane in each direction from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge that would be open when HOT lanes are open the opposite direction. This would greatly improve traffic flow in the off direction.
The cost estimate for that plus all projects proposed for I-95 north of Fredericksburg is upwards of $1 billion.
Note that 2 HOT lanes from just US 17 to Garrisonville (10 miles) cost north of $550 million with virtually no new ROW required. Project that out to adding 2 more lanes from US 17 to Dale City (23 miles) and 3 lanes from there to the Beltway (14 miles), plus reconfiguring most ramps/interchanges to accomodate bi-directional flow, plus a new 3 lane wide bridge over the Occoquan River. Widening of I-95 will be required in many spots north of Dumfries and practically all spots north of Dale City. For comparison, the I-66 outside the beltway (22.5 miles) was >$3 billion and in general was not as constrained for ROW as I-95 would. You are looking at $4-5 billion, maybe more. Is a PPP-type arrangement economically viable for the vendor at that cost level?
Nobody is arguing that bi-directional HOT lanes wouldn't be great. Too bad nobody predicted the growth on the I-95 corridor in the 1960s when the original busway was planned.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 16, 2022, 08:10:58 PM. You are looking at $4-5 billion, maybe more. Is a PPP-type arrangement economically viable for the vendor at that cost level?
Wasn't Maryland planning a $9 billion P3 to add Express Lanes across the entirety of I-495 at one point?
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 16, 2022, 09:58:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 16, 2022, 08:10:58 PM. You are looking at $4-5 billion, maybe more. Is a PPP-type arrangement economically viable for the vendor at that cost level?
Wasn't Maryland planning a $9 billion P3 to add Express Lanes across the entirety of I-495 at one point?
It appears they weren't going to solicit the $9 billion all at once.
https://oplanesmd.com/updates/faqs/#p3faqs
But this may be relevant if Maryland gets the full 70 miles under contract before Virginia did. Are there enough viable vendors available for 2 very large P3 projects at the same time, and if not, can one vendor invest upwards of $15 billion?
I noted yesterday that on the Beltway, there are new white signs as you approach the HO/T lanes saying that toll rates will vary for larger vehicles (I'm not sure what the exact wording was). I found it mildly interesting because large trucks are not allowed in any of the HO/T lanes except the new outside-the-Beltway lanes on I-66, but I guess maybe smaller rental trucks might still be subjected to higher tolls (I recall in the era before E-ZPass being charged a higher toll when I drove a Penske rental truck over the Verrazano Bridge, for example). I also found the timing to be somewhat interesting in that the new signs for I-66 all went up recently and these appeared around the same time. Made me wonder whether there had been some sort of dispute with someone who was charged a higher toll and claimed he was misled as to the toll rate.
There were tons of sign gantries in my October 30th photos of the I-495 Inner Loop approaching I-66. I am unsure how many of those included these signs.
Today's Washington Post has a story about HO/T lane expansion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/12/29/virginia-express-lanes/), both planned and under consideration, in the coming years. It may be paywalled for some of you, but I won't paste the whole thing for reasons of post length and to respect their copyright. Main points:
–I-95 lanes' extension to near Fredericksburg expected to open in 2023.
–Construction will intensify in 2023 on the northern extension of the Beltway HO/T lanes, and the project is to include a multi-use trail parallel to the Beltway (I hope it is further from the travel lanes than the new trail along I-66 outside the Beltway, which looks downright unpleasant to use immediately adjacent to a ten-lane Interstate).
–The I-66 trail noted above is not quite complete, particularly in the area around Gallows Road (I assume it ends there and users connect north on Gallows to the W&OD Trail). The plan is to have it open by May 19.
–There will be a study for bidirectional operations on I-95. See below. That's the part of the article I will paste because I think it's the part people here will find most interesting.
–VDOT is studying options for constructing HO/T lanes on the Beltway between Springfield and the Wilson Bridge and they expect to unveil options sometime in mid-2023. The article says they believe that even if they add two lanes in each direction (one of the options being considered), they can complete the project within the existing right-of-way. This proposal will interest me because of where I live, but my main interest is what, if anything, they plan to do with the interchanges. The Van Dorn Street interchange is a very outdated design and this project would be an ideal time to rebuild it.
Here's the portion about I-95 bidirectional operations. I note it's very unclear from this material what they have in mind. The first two questions that come to my mind are (1) whether they want to do this within the existing reversible lanes' footprint (in which case I assume they would reverse the direction of one of the lanes so two directions are pointed in the peak direction) and (2) if so, how they plan to segregate opposing directions of traffic–perhaps with a zipper barrier like the one on the Roosevelt Bridge? I find it hard to envision that a zipper machine could cover 12 miles of roadway during the brief period when the HO/T lanes are closed to reverse the direction. But bollards don't seem like they'd be an adequate barrier for opposing directions of traffic on an Interstate with 55- to 65-mph speed limits in effect, and bollards wouldn't allow for varying the number of lanes in each direction.
QuoteA study for bidirectional express lanes on I-95
VDOT is studying whether to allow bidirectional travel on a section of the 95 Express Lanes. The lanes are reversible, which means the travel direction changes depending on the day and time. On weekdays, traffic is northbound during the morning commute and southbound in the afternoon.
Shaw said the state is considering having bidirectional travel on a 12-mile section, between the Franconia-Springfield Parkway and Dale City, an area that suffers from severe congestion in both directions even during the nonpeak hours.
She said the study will explore "innovative ways we can look to address and provide additional capacity in that area." But many questions remain, she said, adding that it is too early to know whether the space would allow for traffic in both direction. Currently, two lanes operating in the same direction maintain a 55 mph limit.
"It's going to be very important that we look at the transition areas and make sure that we're not creating worse congestion in those areas," she said. "It's really at the very, very early stages just to see, what are the means, what is the demand, what innovative ways can we think about how to provide this additional capacity?"
^ My guess is something cheap like they're planning in Hampton Roads, making a hard running shoulder lane that will operate in the opposite direction. I see issues with it personally.
And why stop at Dale City? The whole I-95 corridor south of I-495 suffers, not just that 12 mile portion. There is more than enough right of way south of Dale City to expand the HO/T roadway into a 2+2 design with full barriers and shoulders dividing opposing directions.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 29, 2022, 08:51:37 AM
^ My guess is something cheap like they're planning in Hampton Roads, making a hard running shoulder lane that will operate in the opposite direction. I see issues with it personally.
And why stop at Dale City? The whole I-95 corridor south of I-495 suffers, not just that 12 mile portion. There is more than enough right of way south of Dale City to expand the HO/T roadway into a 2+2 design with full barriers and shoulders dividing opposing directions.
Seems to me that another reason why they're focusing, at least initially, on the Dale City to Springfield section is because it encompasses the perpetually gridlocked I-95 Occoquan bottleneck (in which going northbound can often be extremely bad as well). Still, the challenge of not creating new bottlenecks seems to be an impossible one when it comes to I-95 and thus I too suspect that VDOT will ultimately just go with a hard running shoulder lane opposite of whatever direction the HO/T lanes are going. In my mind, the question is whether this shoulder lane would be used as a HO/T lane or simply another general purpose lane. Look forward to the ultimate study findings but remain cautiously pessimistic.
Also heres another article going over the regional push for bi-directional HO/T lanes on I-95 and how not everyone is all for it:
https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/two-way-tolling-on-i-95-picks-up-steam/article_cb6d2aee-86d8-11ed-b8f5-0fa7766a5c5c.html
QuoteMomentum is picking up in certain corners for expanding the tolled express lanes on Interstate 95 to allow for all-day, bidirectional access. But some in Richmond and around the region are saying "not so fast" and calling the idea undercooked or even wrong-headed at present.
The most recent burst of energy behind the long-bandied idea started when Jeff McKay and Ann Wheeler, chairs of the Fairfax and Prince William boards of supervisors, respectively, threw their support behind the idea of making the current express lanes bidirectional around-the-clock.
"We're pressing hard to reconsider the express lanes on 95 and build them properly so that they're not reversible," McKay told NBC4's Adam Tuss during a Dulles Area Transportation Association roundtable. "We're looking at some design elements where that might be able to fit in, but frankly, they should've never been built that way in the first place. They should've been built like the Beltway and [Interstate] 66, and to me the first thing that we should be doing is pressing to get those express lanes going in both directions."
Days later, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors adopted a new addition to the new county Comprehensive Plan endorsing the "examination" of two-way express lanes.
Wheeler was joined by Occoquan's Kenny Boddye, Woodbridge's Margaret Franklin, Neabsco's Victor Angry and Potomac's Andrea Bailey — all of whose districts the interstate runs through — in voicing support for the idea. Ultimately, the decision to make changes on 95 wouldn't be up to the county, but the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and VDOT would seek support from the county if the decision to expand the express lanes ever came to fruition.
"Those lanes going in one direction is the most bizarre thing I have ever seen, and it's the most frustrating on the weekends if you're trying to either get into D.C. or come home, and if the lanes are going in the opposite way of where you're going, it's almost a nightmare," Franklin said. "Understood that we don't manage the interstate of course, but I don't see why in the future why there can't be advocacy from this board supporting that."
VDOT, meanwhile, has opened a study on the feasibility of implementing bidirectional tolling in the express lanes from Franconia/Springfield Parkway to Opitz Boulevard "to better meet travel demands and provide new choices for more travelers," the agency said in a statement. The current reversible lanes span about 30 miles from 395 to Route 610 in Stafford County and will soon extend another 10 miles into Fredericksburg.
Pushback in Richmond
But some in the General Assembly are already pushing back on the idea of making the lanes permanently bidirectional. Speaking at the roundtable, McKay had suggested that much of the two-way toll lanes could be implemented within the existing right-of-way, but Sen. Jeremy McPike, D-29th, told InsideNoVa he doubts it would be possible to convert the current lanes without taking space from the free general purpose lanes or expanding the entire footprint of the interstate, a very expensive proposition.
"I don't know how you can add additional lanes without then stealing from the main lines, which then exacerbates our existing commuters on the main lines. And I don't think anyone's going to put up with that," McPike said.
The current contract between Virginia and TransUrban, which operates the toll lanes, includes a "non-compete" stating that the commonwealth would have to pay the Australia-based company damages if the state decides to expand 95's general lanes or U.S. 1, or if VDOT makes any "Occoquan Bridge improvements" and doesn't hire TransUrban to do so. That provision lasts until 2085.
"There's still that compensation event that hangs over our head. You can't do anything or else you've got to pay," said McPike, whose district encompasses stretches of I-95. " It's a horrible deal, and there wasn't a whole lot of land expansion in the original deal to get that"
State Sen. Scott Surovell, D-36th, whose current district includes stretches of the highway all the way from the Fairfax County Parkway to Aquia Creek, panned the idea of converting the toll lanes to accommodate traffic both ways.
Long a proponent of bringing Metrorail into Prince William, Surovell said he wasn't buying the idea that the conversion could be done within the current right-of-way. If not, he said, the project would cost billions and net the highway just a couple of additional lanes that wouldn't be enough to keep up with the ever-increasing traffic demands on the road.
Instead, he told InsideNoVa, the county leaders who are now talking up bidirectional tolling should be working to find mass transit solutions to the bottlenecks on I-95. One or two more additional lanes, he said, won't make a dent in the increasing traffic as the region continues to grow.
"I hit the same backups every day today that I hit 20 years ago. Widening our roads is insanely expensive and just seems to attract more cars," Surovell told InsideNoVa.
While I agree that implementing bi-directional tolling (as in making the current HO/T lanes 2x2, not adding a hard running shoulder in the GP lanes) would be an extremely expensive and disruptive feat (if even physically feasible or allowed by Transurban), I still think that it is more cost effective and feasible than extending Metro into Prince William County. On the other hand adding BRT along the US-1 corridor is something I do support, just think that is not the sole solution.
I think extending Metrorail to Prince William County is a very poor idea. Once you get that far out, you're in the domain of commuter rail, such as the VRE. There are existing plans to add capacity to the train tracks across the Potomac and into Union Station that would allow for increased VRE service, and that's arguably a better option for Prince William County (especially if the new tracks are restricted to prohibit freight trains).
Also, Metro has serious capacity problems due to its flawed design in downtown DC where the lines share tunnels. The number of trains that can run through those tunnels is limited by the need for minimum headways, so extending the system further out doesn't mean increased service. It would be far more reasonable to try to figure out a way to come up with the money to add capacity downtown. After that's done, then the idea of further expansion further out might be more viable.
Bi-directional flow should be to at least Garrisonville. It is common for NB traffic in the Quantico area to be quite slow during afternoon rush.
The I-15 toll lanes have movable Barriers and caltrans says it takes 2 hours to move the 16 miles. Maybe this would require multiple movers.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 29, 2022, 12:59:04 PM
I think extending Metrorail to Prince William County is a very poor idea. Once you get that far out, you're in the domain of commuter rail, such as the VRE. There are existing plans to add capacity to the train tracks across the Potomac and into Union Station that would allow for increased VRE service, and that's arguably a better option for Prince William County (especially if the new tracks are restricted to prohibit freight trains).
Also, Metro has serious capacity problems due to its flawed design in downtown DC where the lines share tunnels. The number of trains that can run through those tunnels is limited by the need for minimum headways, so extending the system further out doesn't mean increased service. It would be far more reasonable to try to figure out a way to come up with the money to add capacity downtown. After that's done, then the idea of further expansion further out might be more viable.
You make a great point here. In order to provide the needed line capacity into downtown Washington, at least one of the Potomac River crossings on the Metrorail system would need to be expanded to a triple-track system (or comparable) that can support express trains capable of passing local trains. But there still appears to be sufficient congestion along the I-95 corridor to financially support its own rapid transit corridor that never leaves Virginia and forces passengers headed for the District to use VRE trains. The ultimate problem is how to fund three parallel major transportation corridors (I-95, VRE and Metrorail).
^ I said it before and I'll say it again, can VDOT not go through with a P3 with Transurban to lead the I-95 bi-directional express lane project? Use a private company for the majority of the financial contributions to be repayed with toll revenue. They did it with the existing HO/T lanes and the I-495 / I-66 expansions, they can do it again.
It would certainly be a profitable project.
^ You can try, but I doubt you'd get the same success as before. The vast majority of the existing and completed projects were able to be done within the existing ROW, and in I-95's case did not really require replacing existing overpasses. Given the expense of building new lanes, especially through the ROW chokepoints (looking at Woodbridge and Newington in particular), the ROI will not be there for private companies.
Right of way may be an issue in a few areas, but that certainly could be overcome, and as far as having to realign and reconstruct lanes and new overpasses, isn't that exactly what happened on I-66 and I-495? The lanes had to be shifted outwards, interchanges were fully reconstructed and new overpasses built, and a whole new set of managed lanes constructed within the median.
Various concepts including additional right of way or elevated lanes briefly (or even sunken lanes) should at least be explored to determine feasibility.
Link to intersection plans for the I-495 NEXT project, for those who are curious.
Improvements include HO/T lanes ramps to/from the GWMP, but only make repairs to the actual GWMP bridge.
https://sharpco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465df01d5a3042b6960981106ceb5e64
I believe anything involving the GWMP overpass and improvements between there and the American Legion Bridge would be apart of a separate project, assuming Maryland ever constructs its portion, which isn't looking likely now.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 15, 2023, 12:28:00 AM
I believe anything involving the GWMP overpass and improvements between there and the American Legion Bridge would be apart of a separate project, assuming Maryland ever constructs its portion, which isn't looking likely now.
Its going to happen, it just will take longer.
Hey, a two-for-one here! Photos of the final toll gantries being hoisted into place on the I-95 HO/T lanes' southern extension, and then the poster formerly known as ethanman62187 surfaces to respond to their tweet!
https://twitter.com/EC4U2C_Studioz/status/1653463279874785280
They could close the south of 610 entrance since there will be direct access to the lanes from SR 630.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 02, 2023, 04:21:44 PM
They could close the south of 610 entrance since there will be direct access to the lanes from SR 630.
I note there are flyover slip ramps under construction just south of the Marine Corps base exit (Exit 148) that will provide a southbound entrance to, and northbound exit from, the express lanes. Given that, I can see no reason why those ramps should not be the dividing point between two toll segments. It certainly makes eminent sense that people entering near Fredericksburg and using the new 10-mile extension should pay a higher toll than people who enter somewhere on the existing facility.
They are ramping up the study of I-495 southside express lanes. See pdf pg. 102 here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/june/ctb_workshop_meeting_june_20_2023.pdf
The preferred alternative decision is expected spring 2024.
interestingly, they give an opening date for the Fredericksburg extension as August 2023. They definitely have sped up paving the lanes recently.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2023, 09:36:28 AM
They are ramping up the study of I-495 southside express lanes. See pdf pg. 102 here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/june/ctb_workshop_meeting_june_20_2023.pdf
The preferred alternative decision is expected spring 2024.
interestingly, they give an opening date for the Fredericksburg extension as August 2023. They definitely have sped up paving the lanes recently.
Very interested to see what the preferred alternatives are for both this project and the I-95 bidirectional HO/T lanes study. I did find it curious that VDOT does not plan to remove/relocate the concrete barrier separating the Local and Thru lanes on the Wilson Bridge. If that's the case then it would appear that there is only room for one HO/T lane in each direction over the bridge (no way a potential transit line would also fit). Regardless this is assuming of course that Maryland even allows that and based off of their recent history with HO/T lanes, I am extremely skeptical this extension will not just also end at the Potomac River.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 18, 2023, 07:11:50 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2023, 09:36:28 AM
They are ramping up the study of I-495 southside express lanes. See pdf pg. 102 here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/june/ctb_workshop_meeting_june_20_2023.pdf
The preferred alternative decision is expected spring 2024.
interestingly, they give an opening date for the Fredericksburg extension as August 2023. They definitely have sped up paving the lanes recently.
Very interested to see what the preferred alternatives are for both this project and the I-95 bidirectional HO/T lanes study. I did find it curious that VDOT does not plan to remove/relocate the concrete barrier separating the Local and Thru lanes on the Wilson Bridge. If that's the case then it would appear that there is only room for one HO/T lane in each direction over the bridge (no way a potential transit line would also fit). Regardless this is assuming of course that Maryland even allows that and based off of their recent history with HO/T lanes, I am extremely skeptical this extension will not just also end at the Potomac River.
I'm not sure that barrier can be moved without some extensive reconstuction of the bridge, if that's even possible. There's considerable lighting and firefighting standpipe utilities within that wall. Drainage inlets are located against the wall for the inner lanes. And at the drawbridge itself, there's actually two walls, which indicates there may be different bridge sections that are lifted here.
https://goo.gl/maps/7n5FoEDPNoo5xv75A
BTW, take note to the markers for the MD/DC state line on both the near wall and center barrier wall.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2023, 07:44:39 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 18, 2023, 07:11:50 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2023, 09:36:28 AM
They are ramping up the study of I-495 southside express lanes. See pdf pg. 102 here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/june/ctb_workshop_meeting_june_20_2023.pdf
The preferred alternative decision is expected spring 2024.
interestingly, they give an opening date for the Fredericksburg extension as August 2023. They definitely have sped up paving the lanes recently.
Very interested to see what the preferred alternatives are for both this project and the I-95 bidirectional HO/T lanes study. I did find it curious that VDOT does not plan to remove/relocate the concrete barrier separating the Local and Thru lanes on the Wilson Bridge. If that's the case then it would appear that there is only room for one HO/T lane in each direction over the bridge (no way a potential transit line would also fit). Regardless this is assuming of course that Maryland even allows that and based off of their recent history with HO/T lanes, I am extremely skeptical this extension will not just also end at the Potomac River.
I'm not sure that barrier can be moved without some extensive reconstuction of the bridge, if that's even possible. There's considerable lighting and firefighting standpipe utilities within that wall. Drainage inlets are located against the wall for the inner lanes. And at the drawbridge itself, there's actually two walls, which indicates there may be different bridge sections that are lifted here.
Gotcha. Yeah I guess it just seems to me that between not widening the bridge, not relocating concrete barriers, and not precluding future transit, something would have to give in order to make this HO/T lanes extension into Maryland possible.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2023, 07:44:39 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/7n5FoEDPNoo5xv75A
BTW, take note to the markers for the MD/DC state line on both the near wall and center barrier wall.
Neat!
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2023, 09:36:28 AM
They are ramping up the study of I-495 southside express lanes. See pdf pg. 102 here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/june/ctb_workshop_meeting_june_20_2023.pdf
The preferred alternative decision is expected spring 2024.
interestingly, they give an opening date for the Fredericksburg extension as August 2023. They definitely have sped up paving the lanes recently.
They need to extend the Fedex to exit 126, with a new exit to/from RT 17 south instead of having motorists headed on 17 south going onto Rt 1 S then having to do a left turn.
From the end of the extra lanes at Rt 3 this is a bottleneck, volume drops much more beyond.
Quote from: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2023, 09:36:28 AM
They are ramping up the study of I-495 southside express lanes. See pdf pg. 102 here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/june/ctb_workshop_meeting_june_20_2023.pdf
The preferred alternative decision is expected spring 2024.
interestingly, they give an opening date for the Fredericksburg extension as August 2023. They definitely have sped up paving the lanes recently.
They need to extend the Fedex to exit 126, with a new exit to/from RT 17 south instead of having motorists headed on 17 south going onto Rt 1 S then having to do a left turn.
From the end of the extra lanes at Rt 3 this is a bottleneck, volume drops much more beyond.
Not gonna happen. Best case scenario, the next time corridor funding is available, I-95 gets an extra lane from Exit 130 to Exit 126 in both directions which should help. Next on my priority list would be new interchange at Harrison Road (MM 128) which would help alleviate VA-3 west of I-95, another area of frequent congestion. Should be a golden opportunity for that soon when the existing Harrison Road bridge over I-95 needs to be replaced.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 26, 2023, 08:34:06 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2023, 09:36:28 AM
They are ramping up the study of I-495 southside express lanes. See pdf pg. 102 here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/june/ctb_workshop_meeting_june_20_2023.pdf
The preferred alternative decision is expected spring 2024.
interestingly, they give an opening date for the Fredericksburg extension as August 2023. They definitely have sped up paving the lanes recently.
They need to extend the Fedex to exit 126, with a new exit to/from RT 17 south instead of having motorists headed on 17 south going onto Rt 1 S then having to do a left turn.
From the end of the extra lanes at Rt 3 this is a bottleneck, volume drops much more beyond.
Not gonna happen. Best case scenario, the next time corridor funding is available, I-95 gets an extra lane from Exit 130 to Exit 126 in both directions which should help. Next on my priority list would be new interchange at Harrison Road (MM 128) which would help alleviate VA-3 west of I-95, another area of frequent congestion. Should be a golden opportunity for that soon when the existing Harrison Road bridge over I-95 needs to be replaced.
What is not going to happen?
Extending the local/thru to exit 126 or finally giving US17 south a real exit?
Quote from: bluecountry on July 03, 2023, 08:12:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 26, 2023, 08:34:06 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2023, 09:36:28 AM
They are ramping up the study of I-495 southside express lanes. See pdf pg. 102 here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/june/ctb_workshop_meeting_june_20_2023.pdf
The preferred alternative decision is expected spring 2024.
interestingly, they give an opening date for the Fredericksburg extension as August 2023. They definitely have sped up paving the lanes recently.
They need to extend the Fedex to exit 126, with a new exit to/from RT 17 south instead of having motorists headed on 17 south going onto Rt 1 S then having to do a left turn.
From the end of the extra lanes at Rt 3 this is a bottleneck, volume drops much more beyond.
Not gonna happen. Best case scenario, the next time corridor funding is available, I-95 gets an extra lane from Exit 130 to Exit 126 in both directions which should help. Next on my priority list would be new interchange at Harrison Road (MM 128) which would help alleviate VA-3 west of I-95, another area of frequent congestion. Should be a golden opportunity for that soon when the existing Harrison Road bridge over I-95 needs to be replaced.
What is not going to happen?
Extending the local/thru to exit 126 or finally giving US17 south a real exit?
Both, unless an exorbitant amount of new funding is identified. Trust me I'd like to see these projects done too, its just clear to me that there's too many other transportation priorities right now, both around the state and on I-95 elsewhere.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 05, 2023, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 03, 2023, 08:12:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 26, 2023, 08:34:06 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2023, 09:36:28 AM
They are ramping up the study of I-495 southside express lanes. See pdf pg. 102 here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/june/ctb_workshop_meeting_june_20_2023.pdf
The preferred alternative decision is expected spring 2024.
interestingly, they give an opening date for the Fredericksburg extension as August 2023. They definitely have sped up paving the lanes recently.
They need to extend the Fedex to exit 126, with a new exit to/from RT 17 south instead of having motorists headed on 17 south going onto Rt 1 S then having to do a left turn.
From the end of the extra lanes at Rt 3 this is a bottleneck, volume drops much more beyond.
Not gonna happen. Best case scenario, the next time corridor funding is available, I-95 gets an extra lane from Exit 130 to Exit 126 in both directions which should help. Next on my priority list would be new interchange at Harrison Road (MM 128) which would help alleviate VA-3 west of I-95, another area of frequent congestion. Should be a golden opportunity for that soon when the existing Harrison Road bridge over I-95 needs to be replaced.
What is not going to happen?
Extending the local/thru to exit 126 or finally giving US17 south a real exit?
Both, unless an exorbitant amount of new funding is identified. Trust me I'd like to see these projects done too, its just clear to me that there's too many other transportation priorities right now, both around the state and on I-95 elsewhere.
Spotsy as far as VDOT is concerned is Central VA.
Press release today says the 10-mile I-95 HO/T lane extension will open in August and that additional ramps will open sometime this coming winter:
https://expresslanes.com/95extension
(https://expresslanes.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/fredex_TRANS-FredEx-Overview-Map.svg)
Nice!! Can't happen soon enough
I've wondered whether that northbound slip ramp back to the mainline just to the south of the exit for the Marine Corps base will result in the addition of another tolling segment for northbound traffic. Guess we'll find out this winter. It would seem logical because that location is approximately 14 miles north of the lanes' new terminus near Route 17, but the volume of traffic using that slip ramp may not merit it (it would hardly be a surprise to learn that it's mostly traffic heading to the base except on days when an incident snarls the mainline).
They've now announced when the extension will open:
https://twitter.com/VAExpressLanes/status/1687207821786357762
One of the replies to the above: "Will you be able to access exits 133 or 136?"
Kinda missing the point about "Express" there buddy. Adding too many exits dilutes its ability to be Express.
That said, did I hear there is one crossover in the works?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2023, 11:56:55 AM
One of the replies to the above: "Will you be able to access exits 133 or 136?"
Kinda missing the point about "Express" there buddy. Adding too many exits dilutes its ability to be Express.
That said, did I hear there is one crossover in the works?
Yes, there are flyover ramps that will open later this year a short distance to the south of the exit signed as "Marine Corps Base Quantico" (Exit 148). You can see signs of construction on the Google Maps satellite view (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5089138,-77.372917,1834m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu)–the northbound exit will be roughly alongside where it says "Coffee Bar 1010" and the southbound entrance will be roughly alongside where it says "Bennys Used Tires." You can get a better view of both of them under construction by clicking into Street View. As I noted above, I've wondered whether this may lead to new northbound tolling segments whereby the portion south of that spot is the first segment and then the portion from that spot north to the slip ramp back to the mainline near the Prince William Parkway becomes the second segment. (Wouldn't work southbound as there is no exit back to the mainline.)
As for access to Exit 133, yes, there will be access southbound (see the map above where it refers to access to Route 17, which is accessed via Exit 133–there's to be a flyover exit allowing for that movement); at a later date this fall or winter, traffic entering from Exit 133 will have a flyover entrance to the northbound express lanes, but it won't be available when the lanes open later this month.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2023, 11:56:55 AM
One of the replies to the above: "Will you be able to access exits 133 or 136?"
Kinda missing the point about "Express" there buddy. Adding too many exits dilutes its ability to be Express.
That said, did I hear there is one crossover in the works?
There will be no access to exit 136. SB you will have to use the current ending ramp from the toll lanes and use 7 miles of mainline 95 - the BGS is already installed there for SR 8900. NB you have to stay on the mainline.
Exit 133 is where the toll express lanes begin/end and the free express lanes to below exit 130 begin/end. There will be full access to/from exit 133 from the toll express lanes and from the local lanes of 95. There will be no access from the free express lanes.
Express lanes to Fredericksburg will open August 17
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/08/03/virginia-95-express-lanes-fredericksburg/
My work schedule coming up will delay my first trip on them to Aug 28.
Next needs to be the bi-directional lanes... I would've had the option recently to bypass congestion both ways on I-95 recently going into Northern Virginia with the Express Lanes & having HOV, but both times they were pointed the opposite direction.
I understand the 1970s history of the reversible busway and such, but an effort should have been made in the 1990s and early 2000s to construct dual carriageways, along with designing the southern extensions beyond Woodbridge to accommodate a future second roadway - if not outright building it.
The section north of Woodbridge will be tricky, but elevated or depressed lanes can get the job done. They've proven successful in other areas of the country. It will be a costly project but Transurban & private funding can get it done just as it has the other Express Lanes projects. It is sorely needed.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 06, 2023, 08:59:01 PM
Express lanes to Fredericksburg will open August 17
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/08/03/virginia-95-express-lanes-fredericksburg/
My work schedule coming up will delay my first trip on them to Aug 28.
I am thinking about doing them on August 18th going to my parents' house.
Is it possible or likely that the HOT Lanes may eventually extend all the way to Richmond?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 07, 2023, 12:07:33 PM
Is it possible or likely that the HOT Lanes may eventually extend all the way to Richmond?
I doubt it. Any improvements south of the local-thru 12 lane setup being built through Fredericksburg would be general purpose widening to 8 lanes, which ultimately needs to extend to I-295.
North of Fredericksburg, they need to construct bi-directional HO/T lanes (barrier separated, 2 in each direction, not some half-ass shoulder lane setup they're implementing in Norfolk) up to I-495 and ultimately extend the 8 lanes south of the Occoquan River towards Fredericksburg in phases.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 07, 2023, 12:07:33 PM
Is it possible or likely that the HOT Lanes may eventually extend all the way to Richmond?
Not likely. There are not that many people commuting to DC from Richmond. Setting up something with the existing Amtrak corridor could work if a small but growing number of people started doing this commute.
An extension of the local-express lanes from Exit 130 to Exit 126 is much more likely. While civilization is starting to creep towards Thornburg, it may be a while before extending then to Exit 118 would make sense. 8-laning 95 with GP lanes might also be sufficient.
I can confirm the extended Express lanes will have a speed limit of 70 (signs are up); if this will be extended along existing lanes to Dale City or wherever, they have not changed the 65 mph signs.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2023, 06:25:14 AM
I can confirm the extended Express lanes will have a speed limit of 70 (signs are up); if this will be extended along existing lanes to Dale City or wherever, they have not changed the 65 mph signs.
I do appreciate the fact the extension will be 70 mph, but I have to question why the rest of the I-95 lanes up to at least Woodbridge aren't also 70 mph, or even the I-495 lanes. It doesn't even wait until you're west of I-495, there is a 70 mph sign in the middle of the interchange as you're heading westbound.
The I-66 lanes have the same design as I-495 (the flex posts dividing the lanes from the general purpose lanes) and is posted at 70 mph immediately starting at I-495.
Yet I-95 is stuck at 65 mph all the way down to Stafford, which is the general purpose speed limit south of Woodbridge, and same with the I-495 lanes. Arguably, the GP lanes on I-495 should be 65 mph with the HO/T limit at 70 mph, but I highly doubt the GP lanes will ever go above 55 mph.
As to I-495, when they raised the original 55-mph speed limit to 65, VDOT said they had never considered posting 70 mph on there. Insofar as I can recall, they didn't give a reason; they simply said that was how they approached the issue. Maybe the fact that I-66 is generally a much straighter alignment has something to do with it? I don't know, I'm just speculating.
I agree with you about what the speed limit on the Beltway should be. I generally set my cruise control to 65 mph in the general-purpose lanes and 70 mph in the HO/T lanes, in both cases for the purpose of keeping my speed down. I don't pass too many people at those speeds, and that's fine with me as well.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 07, 2023, 01:24:05 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 07, 2023, 12:07:33 PM
Is it possible or likely that the HOT Lanes may eventually extend all the way to Richmond?
Not likely. There are not that many people commuting to DC from Richmond. Setting up something with the existing Amtrak corridor could work if a small but growing number of people started doing this commute.
An extension of the local-express lanes from Exit 130 to Exit 126 is much more likely. While civilization is starting to creep towards Thornburg, it may be a while before extending then to Exit 118 would make sense. 8-laning 95 with GP lanes might also be sufficient.
Thornburg is and will remain rural.
Massapanox is last stop.
For anyone that wants to know, I ended up paying $33.50 driving the I-495 and I-95 Express Lanes Friday Evening from Tysons to Fredericksburg.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 23, 2023, 12:26:36 PM
For anyone that wants to know, I ended up paying $33.50 driving the I-495 and I-95 Express Lanes Friday Evening from Tysons to Fredericksburg.
That sounds lower than I would expect on a Friday during the summer, although I suppose "evening" could be after the peak hours.
I paid $24.85 from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway to the 14th Street Bridge during Monday morning's rush hour. I have no idea what the rest of the route to the south would have cost.
My EZPASS transactions list shows my time on the I-495 and I-95 Express Lanes together being 6:28 PM-7:08 PM.
The return trip on Sunday Morning was $18.90 though that included a loop involving Gallows Rd (SR 650).
Afternoon rush hour from the American Legion Br using toll lanes to SR 610 Garrisonville have run $40-60 daily over the last 3 years.
I drove mainline 95 north to Dumfries today. The 70 mph speed limit on the toll lanes is only on the newly opened segment. Maybe that will change after construction wraps up on the Quantico flyover ramps...?
Right now it is still just 1 segment NB up to SR 644 Springfield. Also might be waiting for those flyovers. Traffic cameras show a new SB segment from SR 610 to US 17.
I noticed the prices for the Express Lanes along 395 have risen significantly over the past week or two. Any specific reason?
Quote from: Old Dominionite on August 29, 2023, 07:46:11 AM
I noticed the prices for the Express Lanes along 395 have risen significantly over the past week or two. Any specific reason?
Is this on weekdays? It's most likely related to the local school systems reopening. Parents who took their kids on vacation when the schools were closed return home and, in many cases, resume their commutes, thereby increasing traffic. The phenomenon of increased traffic used to occur in the days right after Labor Day–the local news outlets sometimes called the day after Labor Day "Terrible Traffic Tuesday"–but it's more spread out since the repeal of the Kings Dominion Law a few years ago.
Also, in terms of the US government (the single biggest employer in DC), the President has been pushing the Executive Branch agencies to require workers to return to the office instead of telecommuting (he doesn't have authority to require that as to the Legislative and Judicial Branches), so that's probably starting to factor into the toll rates as well to the extent it's led to increased traffic volume.
So after a month with the Fredericksburg extension open, I have found that the mainline lanes SB after SR 610 are now wide open to Fredericksburg every day during afternoon rush. So much so that I've stopped using the new extension. There is a VMS before reaching SR 610 with ETA to Fredericksburg (has been 14 min for 15 miles consistently, now) that I can use to judge whether I should stay on the toll lanes, which are routinely $8-9 for the extension.
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 21, 2023, 06:17:27 AM
So after a month with the Fredericksburg extension open, I have found that the mainline lanes SB after SR 610 are now wide open to Fredericksburg every day during afternoon rush. So much so that I've stopped using the new extension. There is a VMS before reaching SR 610 with ETA to Fredericksburg (has been 14 min for 15 miles consistently, now) that I can use to judge whether I should stay on the toll lanes, which are routinely $8-9 for the extension.
That's great news and honestly remarkable. What I'm curious about now is the existing Local and Thru lanes merge south of Exit 130 that pretty much acts as the new HO/T lanes terminus as well. My understanding is that the merge back to three lanes hasn't been horrible (or at least not at the level of the Garrisonsville or Occoquan bottleneck), so I'm wondering what other's experiences have been and if this is the case, would VDOT hold back on adding a fourth lane (or extending the Local/Thru lanes setup) to Exit 126?
Question about the Express Lane extension & traffic... how is the area of I-95 southbound around Garrisonville in the general purpose lanes in the afternoon? I recall it always congested where the HO/T lanes used to terminate. Has that been alleviated now that all the HO/T traffic isn't being dumped out anymore?
^ Isn't that what Mike just commented about? Or were you looking for something more specific?
To answer the last two questions (and more):
the mainline SB between Dale City and Garrisonville has pockets of stop and go. I'm trying to pay more attention to the piece between Dumfries and Garrisonville to see if I could ditch the toll lanes even sooner. What is probably going to remain hung up: the Exit 148 ramp to 95 SB is very busy at afternoon rush and there is a steep hill immediately after, so given the steady truck traffic on 95 and that the loop ramp uphill means slow traffic trying to merge with freeway speeds, there is a high chance this location becomes an obstacle each day.
The old termination point of the toll lanes has been wide open since the extension because way fewer people are leaving the toll lanes here (and even fewer will once the direct toll lanes ramp to SR 630 Stafford CH opens).
I can only speak to the SB local/express merge on the weekends since I use Exit 133 to go home during the week. Saturdays have been very crowded and I've seen the express lanes backed up to the Fall Hill Ave overpass more than once. The local lanes don't back up that far as much. You essentially have 6 lanes dropping to 3. I think the last merge lane on the local lanes needs to be longer, and really, this would be where a 4th lane to Richmond should start (or extend the local lanes to Exit 126 and start the 4th lane there). Curious to see if this improves with the ending of summer.
Incidentally, I don't think the transition lane VDOT built between VA 123 and VA 294 is doing all that much. I can't pay real close attention because the toll lanes are pretty busy in this stretch and people are still caught off guard by the right lane becoming exit only at VA 294 on the toll lanes, so people keep making evasive maneuvers. Also this part of the highway is going uphill directly into the sun.
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 22, 2023, 08:55:57 AM
....
Incidentally, I don't think the transition lane VDOT built between VA 123 and VA 294 is doing all that much. I can't pay real close attention because the toll lanes are pretty busy in this stretch and people are still caught off guard by the right lane becoming exit only at VA 294 on the toll lanes, so people keep making evasive maneuvers. Also this part of the highway is going uphill directly into the sun.
I haven't been on I-95 south in several months, but I suspect that transition lane gets used quite a bit by people who treat it as a passing lane, rather than as an extended merge/diverge area for people entering from 123 or exiting at the Prince William Parkway. We see that happen with onramp acceleration lanes in a good number of places around Northern Virginia (northbound I-395 near the Pentagon where the loop ramp from Route 110 enters is one where I used to see this all the time), so I have no reason to think a far longer auxiliary lane would be treated any differently. That sort of thing would be less obnoxious, in my view, if the transition lane fed a C/D roadway at the Prince William Parkway, but there is no such going southbound.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2023, 10:44:30 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 22, 2023, 08:55:57 AM
....
Incidentally, I don't think the transition lane VDOT built between VA 123 and VA 294 is doing all that much. I can't pay real close attention because the toll lanes are pretty busy in this stretch and people are still caught off guard by the right lane becoming exit only at VA 294 on the toll lanes, so people keep making evasive maneuvers. Also this part of the highway is going uphill directly into the sun.
I haven't been on I-95 south in several months, but I suspect that transition lane gets used quite a bit by people who treat it as a passing lane, rather than as an extended merge/diverge area for people entering from 123 or exiting at the Prince William Parkway. We see that happen with onramp acceleration lanes in a good number of places around Northern Virginia (northbound I-395 near the Pentagon where the loop ramp from Route 110 enters is one where I used to see this all the time), so I have no reason to think a far longer auxiliary lane would be treated any differently. That sort of thing would be less obnoxious, in my view, if the transition lane fed a C/D roadway at the Prince William Parkway, but there is no such going southbound.
Am I the only one that feels that lane would be more useful if it connected directly to that 4th southbound lane that drops just 1/2 mile before it? You would have to do some bridge / road widening to accommodate the entrance lanes from VA-123, but allowing 4 lanes of southbound to continue to VA-294, and become exit only, would at least drop it at a location where more traffic is exiting, and hopefully lessen some of the backup at the Occoquan.
Ultimately, the widening should continue further south, but I think as an interim project, repurposing this new lane to tie into the general purpose lane north of VA-123 would be a start.
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 22, 2023, 08:55:57 AM
I can only speak to the SB local/express merge on the weekends since I use Exit 133 to go home during the week. Saturdays have been very crowded and I've seen the express lanes backed up to the Fall Hill Ave overpass more than once. The local lanes don't back up that far as much. You essentially have 6 lanes dropping to 3. I think the last merge lane on the local lanes needs to be longer, and really, this would be where a 4th lane to Richmond should start (or extend the local lanes to Exit 126 and start the 4th lane there). Curious to see if this improves with the ending of summer.
I travel down to Richmond several times a year and haven't used the Fredericksburg thru lanes at all since they've opened, each time I've avoided them and stuck to the local lanes I've saved myself 15-20+ minutes of traffic piled up in the thru lanes for the 6->3 lane drop. The signage at the thru/local split doesn't indicate that thru lanes are still I-95 which seems to be making a significant difference in traffic distribution between the two.
I'll second getting added capacity down to Exit 126 in one way or another, that's really where the traffic starts to pick up / end and I'm disappointed that it seems like VDOT's happy with finishing at Exit 130.
In Stafford it looks like there is AMPLE room for the Express lanes to be bi-directional which makes the current setup all the more infuriating.
All well and good in Stafford County. The problem is there isn't room for such in Fairfax County without some pretty significant engineering and construction (and probably right-of-way). VDOT isn't going to create bi-directional lanes only to have to shunt that traffic back to the mainline when the reversible lanes are pointing southbound. That would create a bottleneck not unlike what exists at the north end of the Beltway express lanes.
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2023, 09:59:57 PM
All well and good in Stafford County. The problem is there isn't room for such in Fairfax County without some pretty significant engineering and construction (and probably right-of-way).
Perhaps VDOT should get the ball rolling on such a thing. Elevated or sunken express lanes are both options, and both have been successfully implemented in other areas. They're not impossible.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 11:50:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2023, 09:59:57 PM
All well and good in Stafford County. The problem is there isn't room for such in Fairfax County without some pretty significant engineering and construction (and probably right-of-way).
Perhaps VDOT should get the ball rolling on such a thing. Elevated or sunken express lanes are both options, and both have been successfully implemented in other areas. They're not impossible.
Exactly
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2023, 03:35:13 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 11:50:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2023, 09:59:57 PM
All well and good in Stafford County. The problem is there isn't room for such in Fairfax County without some pretty significant engineering and construction (and probably right-of-way).
Perhaps VDOT should get the ball rolling on such a thing. Elevated or sunken express lanes are both options, and both have been successfully implemented in other areas. They're not impossible.
Exactly
Where has anyone retrofitted a double deck roadway in an urban setting for 15 miles? What would traffic be like while they did that retrofit? This would be required around Woodbridge, possibly Dale City and everywhere north of Newington/VA 286. Nearly all interchanges and flyovers between Fredericksburg and DC would have to be significantly altered or rebuilt entirely. It would be cheaper to build a time machine and go back to the 1960s to try to convince VDOH that the region would grow to the extent that it has. Probably also cheaper to build a real DC bypass for 95 thru-traffic which would drop the volumes on 95 to something more manageable.
VDOT has already estimated the cost of adding an additional lane to 95 from Thornburg to Springfield a few years ago to be $12B. Making the express lanes bi-directional for 40+ miles would be in the same neighborhood.
Would it be better in the end than the present? Yep. Is VDOT ever going to embark on a project that is double their annual budget? Don't see it.
Yeah, yeah always the same crap. It can't be done because of cost or this or that blah blah blah.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2023, 01:20:54 PM
Yeah, yeah always the same crap. It can't be done because of cost or this or that blah blah blah.
Agreed... And yet somehow Transurban invested billions of
private dollars into the I-95 / I-495 / I-395 HO/T lane system over the last several years and it wasn't an issue.
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 22, 2023, 10:51:07 AM
Where has anyone retrofitted a double deck roadway in an urban setting for 15 miles?
1. San Antonio I-35: https://www.txdot.gov/35nexcentral.html
10 miles of elevated (2 to 3 lane in each direction) through travel lanes are currently being added to I-35 northeast of San Antonio.
2. Dallas I-635: https://www.ferrovial.com/en-us/business/projects/ih-635-managed-lanes-lbj-express-dallas/
Several years ago, 13 miles of I-635 was widened with 2 to 3 HO/T lanes in each direction, and around 5 miles was sunken. It's pretty impressive to drive on. Urban right of way constraints didn't prevent TxDOT from adding six HO/T lanes in this area, and they're bidirectional too.
Street View: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ELKwXLoPra14pEZ29?g_st=ic
3. Los Angeles I-110: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor_Transitway
In the late 1990s, two HOV lanes were constructed in either direction (bidirectional) for 10 miles, and includes around 3 miles of elevated viaduct carrying the lanes due to right of way constraints toward the northern end.
Street View: https://maps.app.goo.gl/H1pBvPnj3iGV7phG8?g_st=ic
—
I didn't even mention Texas' elevated "upper" "lower" deck setups around San Antonio, Austin, and I believe in a couple other places. It is most certainly a doable project to add bidirectional HO/T lanes on I-95 - claiming otherwise is just adding to Virginia's sad excuse of a traffic snarl which is I-95 in Northern Virginia.
^^^ thank you. Just didn't have the mental energy to post anything more
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 11:50:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2023, 09:59:57 PM
All well and good in Stafford County. The problem is there isn't room for such in Fairfax County without some pretty significant engineering and construction (and probably right-of-way).
Perhaps VDOT should get the ball rolling on such a thing. Elevated or sunken express lanes are both options, and both have been successfully implemented in other areas. They're not impossible.
I never said they were impossible. Technically and engineering-wise, yes it is possible. But what you continually ignore on this forum is the political and financial reality.
Sure, Transurban sold the state on a "sweet deal" to invest a few billion in the existing lanes. But to get bi-directional through the aforementioned choke points would require a order-of-magnitude higher investment. How high would tolls have to get for Transurban to pony up that much more cash? And, moreso, would the traveling public be willing to accept that higher toll? They're already screaming enough as it is.
Here is something new starting next week. I'm having trouble envisioning where this "diversion" will occur. The only slip ramp I can picture for northbound traffic in that area is down by the Prince William Parkway.
https://twitter.com/VAExpressLanes/status/1720075304612642904
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2023, 09:51:36 AM
Here is something new starting next week. I'm having trouble envisioning where this "diversion" will occur. The only slip ramp I can picture for northbound traffic in that area is down by the Prince William Parkway.
https://twitter.com/VAExpressLanes/status/1720075304612642904
This is the ramp they mean...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PtUENt1U1o92VXGf7
Given the description, the slip ramp near PW Pkwy does seem logical.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 02, 2023, 12:57:20 PM
This is the ramp they mean...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PtUENt1U1o92VXGf7
Thanks. That's the one I thought of, but I wouldn't consider that to be "near" Route 123, especially in view of the map they posted.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2023, 01:32:00 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 02, 2023, 12:57:20 PM
This is the ramp they mean...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PtUENt1U1o92VXGf7
Thanks. That's the one I thought of, but I wouldn't consider that to be "near" Route 123, especially in view of the map they posted.
It's signed for VA 123 which may be the source of their description. If they said "at VA 294" that would confuse people because there is no VA 294 posting NB on the express lanes.
Channel 4 just reported that the remaining new access points for the I-95 HO/T lanes' southern extension will open on December 7.
They have now redone the segments at the south end of I-95 in both directions. As was predicted, SB the last segment is SR 610 to US 17; NB the first segment is US 17 to the first possible exit, the slip ramp to access Exit 148 Quantico MCB.
Two unusual things: NB from US 17, the toll rates are shown for Quantico and Dumfries, always the same price. Because you would use the same Exit 148 slip ramp. But it is not signed as being for Dumfries.
The other is that at both the SR 610 entrance ramps to NB and the new last entrance ramp from 95 SB to the lanes, they list prices for destinations that are not in the same segment. Then shortly after entering the lanes you get another set of toll rates if you don't depart at the next exit. The values are always less than what was on the mainline signs you just went under. This may be confusing to motorists when they think they should be charged the lower numbers.
Also, they have not expanded the 70 mph zone with the opening of the Quantico area ramps (though there are still some temporary jersey walls up).