Northern Virginia HOT Lanes

[Beltway]

You're just being your usual contentious self.

Again, what happened to no personal attacks? 
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.

[sprjus4]

Sounds like you are bitter and angry about my comments...

Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.

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.

[kevinb1994]

Sounds like you are bitter and angry about my comments...

Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.

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

[Beltway]

Did you smoke a reefer today?

[sprjus4]

Did you smoke a reefer today?

I think you may need to step back from your computer and take a break.

[kevinb1994]

Did you smoke a reefer today?

No, but there was madness.

[froggie]

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.

I'd forgotten about that.  Interesting considering the I-64 reversible roadway in Norfolk does expressly prohibit trucks.

What a cheap way to put in an additional lane  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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[sprjus4]

^ Here's something interesting...

I-95 HOV/HOT Lanes Design Public Hearing Materials, September 6, 2011

In the public comments section...

The 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...

Thank 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.

[Beltway]

Thank 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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[sprjus4]

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?

[Alps]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[Beltway]

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?

[Beltway]

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". 

[sprjus4]

Substandard - doesn't meet standards.

It's not "crappy" , it just doesn't meet standards.

[1995hoo]

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."

[sprjus4]

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..

[sprjus4]

"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.

[Beltway]

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?

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