Virginia

[D-Dey65]

Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

I am shocked that they confused the Nice Bridge with the CBBT in the article.

Perhaps the writer meant the Bay Bridge (in Maryland) and simply used the wrong name. That seems far more plausible to me because Route 301 is indeed a major route to the Bay Bridge for people who want to avoid the Beltway.

The only thing preventing me from reminding the author of that article about that error, is that they only allow facebook posts as replies, and I don't have a facebook page.

BTW, I'm still thinking of taking a detour on the Boulevard Bridge in Richmond when I head up to NYC next week.

[hbelkins]

Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

I am shocked that they confused the Nice Bridge with the CBBT in the article.

Perhaps the writer meant the Bay Bridge (in Maryland) and simply used the wrong name. That seems far more plausible to me because Route 301 is indeed a major route to the Bay Bridge for people who want to avoid the Beltway.

The only thing preventing me from reminding the author of that article about that error, is that they only allow facebook posts as replies, and I don't have a facebook page.

Get a throwaway email address and create a dummy Facebook account from it. Problem solved.

[Beltway]

VDOT News Release
April 10, 2019

CTB ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF INTERSTATE 95 CORRIDOR STUDY

RICHMOND — Today, at the monthly meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine announced the launch of the Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan.
 
The CTB, supported by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Virginia State Police, will study Interstate 95 (I-95) to identify priorities as well as potential revenue sources that could be dedicated to improvements.  Senate Joint Resolution 276 and House Joint Resolution 581 during the 2019 General Assembly direct the CTB to identify targeted improvements and incident management strategies for the corridor, as well as financing options for suggested projects.
 
"I-95 is one of the most complex transportation corridors in our Commonwealth,"  said Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine.  "This study creates an opportunity to examine the use and needs of I-95 with the goals of relieving congestion, increasing safety, and advancing Virginia's economic competitiveness."  
 
The I-95 Corridor Study will begin with public meetings to solicit community, industry, and stakeholder feedback throughout the spring and summer, with a draft plan report expected in late fall.  The first public meetings will be held in the Fredericksburg District on May 9 and in the Northern Virginia District on May 13.  The CTB plans to report its findings to the General Assembly in December, prior to the start of the legislative session in January 2020.
 
The CTB also received updates from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) on next steps anticipated for Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust funds dedicated to replacing heavy and medium-duty polluting vehicles with cleaner vehicles.
 
Last October, Governor Northam announced that the Commonwealth of Virginia will invest $14 million, or 15 percent, of the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust to fund the deployment of all-electric transit buses across Virginia.  Three transit systems have committed to converting all or a portion of their fleets to electric vehicles: Alexandria DASH, Blacksburg Transit, and Hampton Roads Transit.  Staff-recommended projects in the Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP) include funding for vehicles and charging infrastructure.  DRPT and the Virginia Department of General Services (DGS) are in the process of procuring electric transit vehicles under a statewide contract in order to streamline purchase and deployment of these critical assets.  This allocation represents the first year of a three-year partnership between DRPT and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality intended to facilitate the conversion of the transit fleet to clean fuels.

[NJRoadfan]

You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.

[Beltway]

You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.

The New Jersey internet police.

[1995hoo]

You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.

I see a moderator edited it. Another nickname for the governor?

[Roadsguy]

You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.

I see a moderator edited it. Another nickname for the governor?

Probably a browser text replacement extension that inserts "Blackface" before the word "Northam."

[Beltway]

This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 

VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.

This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/route_711_robious_road-huguenot_trail_widening_and_bernards_creek_bridge_replacement_in_chesterfield-powhatan.asp

Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) Widening and Bernards Creek Bridge Replacement in Chesterfield/Powhatan

The project is widening Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) between Route 288 and the Chesterfield/Powhatan County line.

The project will improve safety and reduce congestion by widening Route 711 from two lanes to four lanes and adding bicycle lanes.  In addition, a sidewalk will be added to the Bernards Creek bridge.

Total estimated cost: $19.5 million
Estimated completion date: Summer 2019
 

[WillWeaverRVA]

This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 

VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.

This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/route_711_robious_road-huguenot_trail_widening_and_bernards_creek_bridge_replacement_in_chesterfield-powhatan.asp

Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) Widening and Bernards Creek Bridge Replacement in Chesterfield/Powhatan

The project is widening Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) between Route 288 and the Chesterfield/Powhatan County line.

The project will improve safety and reduce congestion by widening Route 711 from two lanes to four lanes and adding bicycle lanes.  In addition, a sidewalk will be added to the Bernards Creek bridge.

Total estimated cost: $19.5 million
Estimated completion date: Summer 2019
 

Yaaaaay. It's about time. This should really help eliminate the bottleneck that previously existed just before the Chesterfield/Powhatan county line.

Now if VDOT would upgrade SR 711 back to primary status...

[sprjus4]

This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 

VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.

This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/route_711_robious_road-huguenot_trail_widening_and_bernards_creek_bridge_replacement_in_chesterfield-powhatan.asp

Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) Widening and Bernards Creek Bridge Replacement in Chesterfield/Powhatan

The project is widening Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) between Route 288 and the Chesterfield/Powhatan County line.

The project will improve safety and reduce congestion by widening Route 711 from two lanes to four lanes and adding bicycle lanes.  In addition, a sidewalk will be added to the Bernards Creek bridge.

Total estimated cost: $19.5 million
Estimated completion date: Summer 2019

Nice. Now I wish they'd get some money in for local projects down here in Hampton Roads.

VDOT was going to widen Route 165 (Mt. Pleasant Rd) from 2 to 4-lanes back in 2013, and was near the completion of design, everything funded, then retracted the funding. Now it remains a 2-lane roadway with 20,000 AADT and daily backups and congestion. The City of Chesapeake is doing a smaller project to add a center-turn lane, which will help some, though it ultimately will become a 6-lane corridor one day. The 4-lane widening VDOT proposed would have a wide enough median to accommodate 6 lanes.

They widened the portion between VA-168 (Chesapeake Expressway) and VA-168 Business (Battlefield Blvd) in the 90s to 4-lanes, though still haven't done east of VA-168.

[sprjus4]

You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.

.... and you just ruined it. 

[sprjus4]

Segment 2 of the I-64 Peninsula Widening is nearing completion. All 6-lanes of traffic are now open, making I-64 at least 6 lanes between the HRBT and west of VA-199 (Exit 242), a distance of about 30 miles.

Work is still finalizing, and will be fully completed next month. It appears there still is some paving that needs to be completed on the existing lanes. Notice the difference in the picture.

Segment 3, extending another 8 miles to north of VA-199 (Exit 234), will be completed in 2021.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-Widening-Project-Update.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=ZCYzjMqeOjA

[Beltway]

This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 
VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.
This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.

Yaaaaay. It's about time. This should really help eliminate the bottleneck that previously existed just before the Chesterfield/Powhatan county line.

How bad was the bottleneck?  I never saw it at the peak of rush hour, so while I saw it pretty busy at times, I don't recall seeing a backup.

I do think it was smart to build this project to 4 lanes, since there will be traffic growth as the area develops. 

Like with the VA-288 interchange with VA-6 Patterson Avenue, the VA-711/VA-288 interchange has not seen any major development yet, but the counties have planned for it.  VA-288 was completed in 2005, and it surprising that they have not seen any major development yet.  The other interchanges (Lucks Lane, Woolridge Road, US-60, West Creek Parkway, Tuckahoe Parkway and US-250) have all seen major new development nearby since VA-288 was completed.

[WillWeaverRVA]

This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 
VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.
This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.

Yaaaaay. It's about time. This should really help eliminate the bottleneck that previously existed just before the Chesterfield/Powhatan county line.

How bad was the bottleneck?  I never saw it at the peak of rush hour, so while I saw it pretty busy at times, I don't recall seeing a backup.

I do think it was smart to build this project to 4 lanes, since there will be traffic growth as the area develops. 

Like with the VA-288 interchange with VA-6 Patterson Avenue, the VA-711/VA-288 interchange has not seen any major development yet, but the counties have planned for it.  VA-288 was completed in 2005, and it surprising that they have not seen any major development yet.  The other interchanges (Lucks Lane, Woolridge Road, US-60, West Creek Parkway, Tuckahoe Parkway and US-250) have all seen major new development nearby since VA-288 was completed.

Westbound traffic could back up quite a ways during rush hour, occasionally as far back as before James River Drive in Chesterfield County. There are definitely worse bottlenecks in the area but this one was pretty annoying to deal with back when I commuted that way on a regular basis. The first phase of the SR 711 widening from Twin Team Drive to Robious Forest Way eased it somewhat.

[sprjus4]

VDOT News Release
April 10, 2019

CTB ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF INTERSTATE 95 CORRIDOR STUDY

RICHMOND — Today, at the monthly meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine announced the launch of the Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan.
 
The CTB, supported by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Virginia State Police, will study Interstate 95 (I-95) to identify priorities as well as potential revenue sources that could be dedicated to improvements.  Senate Joint Resolution 276 and House Joint Resolution 581 during the 2019 General Assembly direct the CTB to identify targeted improvements and incident management strategies for the corridor, as well as financing options for suggested projects.
 
"I-95 is one of the most complex transportation corridors in our Commonwealth,"  said Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine.  "This study creates an opportunity to examine the use and needs of I-95 with the goals of relieving congestion, increasing safety, and advancing Virginia's economic competitiveness."  
 
The I-95 Corridor Study will begin with public meetings to solicit community, industry, and stakeholder feedback throughout the spring and summer, with a draft plan report expected in late fall.  The first public meetings will be held in the Fredericksburg District on May 9 and in the Northern Virginia District on May 13.  The CTB plans to report its findings to the General Assembly in December, prior to the start of the legislative session in January 2020.
 
The CTB also received updates from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) on next steps anticipated for Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust funds dedicated to replacing heavy and medium-duty polluting vehicles with cleaner vehicles.
 
Last October, Governor Northam announced that the Commonwealth of Virginia will invest $14 million, or 15 percent, of the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust to fund the deployment of all-electric transit buses across Virginia.  Three transit systems have committed to converting all or a portion of their fleets to electric vehicles: Alexandria DASH, Blacksburg Transit, and Hampton Roads Transit.  Staff-recommended projects in the Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP) include funding for vehicles and charging infrastructure.  DRPT and the Virginia Department of General Services (DGS) are in the process of procuring electric transit vehicles under a statewide contract in order to streamline purchase and deployment of these critical assets.  This allocation represents the first year of a three-year partnership between DRPT and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality intended to facilitate the conversion of the transit fleet to clean fuels.

Nice to at least see them studying it, but I'm sadly not expecting much out of it. If they're actually going to look at issues, I'm hoping at least a long-range vision of 8-lanes, or some sort of local-thru concept is recommended from at least the leg from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge.

The I-95 Fredericksburg C/D Lanes between south of Route 3 and north of Route 17 is costing approx. $264 million for both directions ($132 million each-way). Using that base number, that's $50 million per mile. If they invested $50 million per mile from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge to keep that C/D concept going, in addition with the reversible HO/T lane, that could result in 6 lanes in each direction, plus 8 lanes when the HO/T lanes are pointed in that direction, expanding that section to 12 lanes + 2 HO/T lanes total.

That could severely help traffic IMHO, and for about $1.5 billion using $50 million per mile.

South of Fredericksburg, about 40 miles of 8-lane widening at $30 million per mile would be about $1.2 billion.

So essentially, if the numbers are correct, $2.7 billion for 8-lanes south of Fredericksburg, and 12 lanes + 2 HO/T lanes north of Fredericksburg. I hope this gets considered or evaluated in their study. That could severely reduce congestion.

[Jmiles32]

Nice to at least see them studying it, but I'm sadly not expecting much out of it. If they're actually going to look at issues, I'm hoping at least a long-range vision of 8-lanes, or some sort of local-thru concept is recommended from at least the leg from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge.

The I-95 Fredericksburg C/D Lanes between south of Route 3 and north of Route 17 is costing approx. $264 million for both directions ($132 million each-way). Using that base number, that's $50 million per mile. If they invested $50 million per mile from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge to keep that C/D concept going, in addition with the reversible HO/T lane, that could result in 6 lanes in each direction, plus 8 lanes when the HO/T lanes are pointed in that direction, expanding that section to 12 lanes + 2 HO/T lanes total.

That could severely help traffic IMHO, and for about $1.5 billion using $50 million per mile.

South of Fredericksburg, about 40 miles of 8-lane widening at $30 million per mile would be about $1.2 billion.

So essentially, if the numbers are correct, $2.7 billion for 8-lanes south of Fredericksburg, and 12 lanes + 2 HO/T lanes north of Fredericksburg. I hope this gets considered or evaluated in their study. That could severely reduce congestion.

If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract. Since both options are obviously extremely expensive, VA's best bang for buck would be to immediately start focusing on widening I-95 to 8-lanes from Fredericksburg south to I-295. Also if state's contract for the impending 10-mile I-95 HOT lanes southern extension is for some reason different than that of the current one, then it is possible this 8-lane expansion could go as far north as Garrisonville. From Garrisonville to Woodbridge, the state's primary focus should either be widening the HOT lanes themselves to 3-lanes, 6-laneing US-1, or both.

[Beltway]

If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract.

Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.

[Mapmikey]

A compensation event won't necessarily mean $ transferred from VDOT to Transurban...

They worked out an agreement for Transurban to build a direct ramp from the HOT lanes to Opitz Blvd in exchange for VDOT adding the transition lane between VA 123 and VA 294.

[Beltway]

A compensation event won't necessarily mean $ transferred from VDOT to Transurban...
They worked out an agreement for Transurban to build a direct ramp from the HOT lanes to Opitz Blvd in exchange for VDOT adding the transition lane between VA 123 and VA 294.

A win-win situation for all parties.  I don't see any design issues in adding that ramp.

[Jmiles32]

If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract.

Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.

The evidence from the state is that in a recent smart-scale cycle, the CTB rejected and screened out a potential I-95 project that would have added a 4th lane in both directions south from VA-123 to VA-234 in fear of a compensation event. It is also my understanding that Transurban has more of an upper hand in deciding what exactly that compensation event would be (via the original contract), study or not. While I would also like to see a detailed financial study regarding theoretical projects and compensation events, I honestly think VA knows it won't be pretty or else surely it would have already happened by now.

[Beltway]

Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.

The evidence from the state is that in a recent smart-scale cycle, the CTB rejected and screened out a potential I-95 project that would have added a 4th lane in both directions south from VA-123 to VA-234 in fear of a compensation event.

OK, where in Smart Scale does it say that?

It is also my understanding that Transurban has more of an upper hand in deciding what exactly that compensation event would be (via the original contract), study or not.

No they do not.  The state owns and controls the highway and the burden of proof would be on the private partner.

While I would also like to see a detailed financial study regarding theoretical projects and compensation events, I honestly think VA knows it won't be pretty or else surely it would have already happened by now.

So there is no detailed study.   Such a project would have to compete with all the other projects in the state and along I-95.  I-95 needs widening all the way south to I-295.

[Jmiles32]

Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.

The evidence from the state is that in a recent smart-scale cycle, the CTB rejected and screened out a potential I-95 project that would have added a 4th lane in both directions south from VA-123 to VA-234 in fear of a compensation event.

OK, where in Smart Scale does it say that?

http://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9873d480d8f04a83b437a3a12c949db7
^While unfortunately the project scorecard and url link no longer work when you click on the project, here's the broad version and the specific version for why it was rejected:
http://vasmartscale.org/documents/fy18smartscalescreenedoutprojects.pdf
https://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/

In a response, the CTB noted it wouldn't even consider the project because of the negative impacts it could have to the Express Lanes.

"As a result of this review, it has been determined that...[widening] I-95 from Occoquan River bridge to Route 234 is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes..."  the letter stated.

The state's new Smart Scale process requires state transportation planners place every proposed transportation project under heavy scrutiny before any funds are awarded. The fact that the state could be forced to pay Transurban, the Austrailian company that operates the Express Lanes for the next 70 years, was enough for it shut down the widening idea, with the letter stating "this project will not proceed to the next step in the evaluation process."

Seems to me like the CTB is definitely afraid of a compensation event.
Btw the proposed project to widen I-95 just 8 miles would have cost $415 million! No way that would have scored well in smart scale regardless of it already being screened out. I'm also not 100% sure that cost estimate even included potential compensation adding to price either.

Since you obviously seem to know something that apparently many local transportation officials and politicians up here do not, I encourage you to write them an enlightening letter or an email so that this massive project can move forward relatively soon.

[sprjus4]

A compensation event won't necessarily mean $ transferred from VDOT to Transurban...
They worked out an agreement for Transurban to build a direct ramp from the HOT lanes to Opitz Blvd in exchange for VDOT adding the transition lane between VA 123 and VA 294.

A win-win situation for all parties.  I don't see any design issues in adding that ramp.

Not so much a win-win for VDOT, as the infamous 4th lane drop south of the Occoquan which is the cause of 5+ mile daily backups will not be fixed or extended. Only an auxiliary lane between the VA-123 on-ramp and VA-294 off ramp. It will help some, but a full overhaul is needed in the long run (more like it's needed now, but it's not happening for another 5 years minimum).

Btw the proposed project to widen I-95 just 8 miles would have cost $415 million!

Roughly $52 million per mile. I've estimated in the past that widening between Fredericksburg and the Occoquan River for 30 miles would be about $50 million per mile, give or take, being about $1.5 billion total. For the entire corridor to Richmond, if you use $50 million per mile, for 75 miles, that's about $3.75 billion.

Reasonable cost estimate IMHO. I-64 widening on the Peninsula here in Hampton Roads is similar. About $40 - $50 million per mile on the 6-lane widenings.

If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract. Since both options are obviously extremely expensive, VA's best bang for buck would be to immediately start focusing on widening I-95 to 8-lanes from Fredericksburg south to I-295. Also if state's contract for the impending 10-mile I-95 HOT lanes southern extension is for some reason different than that of the current one, then it is possible this 8-lane expansion could go as far north as Garrisonville. From Garrisonville to Woodbridge, the state's primary focus should either be widening the HOT lanes themselves to 3-lanes, 6-laneing US-1, or both.

That would be a horrible option. I-95 south of Fredericksburg has less traffic than north of Fredericksburg, and would be the last segment to be widened. That stretch mainly does fine traffic wise, except recurring congestion still can occur, especially on peak weekends. The segment north has way worse congestion that would be the top priority.

If you widened north of Fredericksburg and dropped from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville as the volumes are increasing, that's how you create a whole new backup on it's own (see the Occoquan River choke point VDOT created when the 8-laned north of there)

It would be interesting to see the HO/T lanes widened to handle more traffic and to reduce congestion, but that would be the opposite of what Transurban wants. Currently, we see frequent $15 - $20 tolls because if it's any cheaper, the lanes would choke up. If you have 3 lanes now, $15 - $20 tolls wouldn't be able to fill the lanes to capacity. In order to fill up this new capacity, you'd need lower tolls which results in less money for Transurban.

Also, VDOT shouldn't prioritize widening the HO/T lanes over the GP lanes. The HO/T lanes don't choke up. The GP lanes do. GP lane widening, interchange expansion / reconfigurations, etc. should be the top priority.

[Beltway]

Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.

The evidence from the state is that in a recent smart-scale cycle, the CTB rejected and screened out a potential I-95 project that would have added a 4th lane in both directions south from VA-123 to VA-234 in fear of a compensation event.

OK, where in Smart Scale does it say that?

http://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9873d480d8f04a83b437a3a12c949db7
^While unfortunately the project scorecard and url link no longer work when you click on the project, here's the broad version and the specific version for why it was rejected:
http://vasmartscale.org/documents/fy18smartscalescreenedoutprojects.pdf

Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".

In 2018 estimated at $415 million for 8 miles of widening by one GP lane each way.  That is why it did not score well in Smart Scale (other priorities around the state).

https://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/

I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.

[Mapmikey]

Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".


I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.

Here you go...the official VDOT response to the Occoquan Supervisor's request, which was linked in Johnny Newspaper's article. 

However, IMO it appears the rejection isn't so much that there would be a compensation event, it's that at the time of submittal they didn't have enough information to know how much $ that would add to the cost of the project and therefore could not be accurately scored.