Northern Virginia HOT Lanes

[1995hoo]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[mtantillo]

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.

[froggie]

Should also be noted that a third of the northbound HOT lane traffic is exiting at the Beltway.

[cpzilliacus]

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? 

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[mtantillo]

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.

[mtantillo]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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. 

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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!

[mrsman]

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.

[Mapmikey]

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

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[1995hoo]

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."

[cpzilliacus]

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. 

[1995hoo]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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.

[1995hoo]

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!

[mrsman]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[froggie]

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).

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone think the HOT Lanes will eventually encompass the entire 64-mile beltway? I think it should.

[cpzilliacus]

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.