Northern Virginia HOT Lanes

[sprjus4]

I can confirm the extended Express lanes will have a speed limit of 70 (signs are up); if this will be extended along existing lanes to Dale City or wherever, they have not changed the 65 mph signs.

I do appreciate the fact the extension will be 70 mph, but I have to question why the rest of the I-95 lanes up to at least Woodbridge aren't also 70 mph, or even the I-495 lanes. It doesn't even wait until you're west of I-495, there is a 70 mph sign in the middle of the interchange as you're heading westbound.

The I-66 lanes have the same design as I-495 (the flex posts dividing the lanes from the general purpose lanes) and is posted at 70 mph immediately starting at I-495.

Yet I-95 is stuck at 65 mph all the way down to Stafford, which is the general purpose speed limit south of Woodbridge, and same with the I-495 lanes. Arguably, the GP lanes on I-495 should be 65 mph with the HO/T limit at 70 mph, but I highly doubt the GP lanes will ever go above 55 mph.

[1995hoo]

As to I-495, when they raised the original 55-mph speed limit to 65, VDOT said they had never considered posting 70 mph on there. Insofar as I can recall, they didn't give a reason; they simply said that was how they approached the issue. Maybe the fact that I-66 is generally a much straighter alignment has something to do with it? I don't know, I'm just speculating.

I agree with you about what the speed limit on the Beltway should be. I generally set my cruise control to 65 mph in the general-purpose lanes and 70 mph in the HO/T lanes, in both cases for the purpose of keeping my speed down. I don't pass too many people at those speeds, and that's fine with me as well.

[bluecountry]

Is it possible or likely that the HOT Lanes may eventually extend all the way to Richmond?

Not likely.  There are not that many people commuting to DC from Richmond.  Setting up something with the existing Amtrak corridor could work if a small but growing number of people started doing this commute.

An extension of the local-express lanes from Exit 130 to Exit 126 is much more likely.  While civilization is starting to creep towards Thornburg, it may be a while before extending then to Exit 118 would make sense.  8-laning 95 with GP lanes might also be sufficient.

Thornburg is and will remain rural.
Massapanox is last stop.

[74/171FAN]

For anyone that wants to know, I ended up paying $33.50 driving the I-495 and I-95 Express Lanes Friday Evening from Tysons to Fredericksburg.

[1995hoo]

For anyone that wants to know, I ended up paying $33.50 driving the I-495 and I-95 Express Lanes Friday Evening from Tysons to Fredericksburg.

That sounds lower than I would expect on a Friday during the summer, although I suppose "evening" could be after the peak hours.

I paid $24.85 from the Franconia—Springfield Parkway to the 14th Street Bridge during Monday morning's rush hour. I have no idea what the rest of the route to the south would have cost.

[74/171FAN]

My EZPASS transactions list shows my time on the I-495 and I-95 Express Lanes together being 6:28 PM-7:08 PM.

The return trip on Sunday Morning was $18.90 though that included a loop involving Gallows Rd (SR 650).

[Mapmikey]

Afternoon rush hour from the American Legion Br using toll lanes to SR 610 Garrisonville have run $40-60 daily over the last 3 years.

I drove mainline 95 north to Dumfries today.  The 70 mph speed limit on the toll lanes is only on the newly opened segment.  Maybe that will change after construction wraps up on the Quantico flyover ramps...?

Right now it is still just 1 segment NB up to SR 644 Springfield.  Also might be waiting for those flyovers.  Traffic cameras show a new SB segment from SR 610 to US 17.

[Old Dominionite]

I noticed the prices for the Express Lanes along 395 have risen significantly over the past week or two. Any specific reason?

[1995hoo]

I noticed the prices for the Express Lanes along 395 have risen significantly over the past week or two. Any specific reason?

Is this on weekdays? It's most likely related to the local school systems reopening. Parents who took their kids on vacation when the schools were closed return home and, in many cases, resume their commutes, thereby increasing traffic. The phenomenon of increased traffic used to occur in the days right after Labor Day–the local news outlets sometimes called the day after Labor Day "Terrible Traffic Tuesday"–but it's more spread out since the repeal of the Kings Dominion Law a few years ago.

Also, in terms of the US government (the single biggest employer in DC), the President has been pushing the Executive Branch agencies to require workers to return to the office instead of telecommuting (he doesn't have authority to require that as to the Legislative and Judicial Branches), so that's probably starting to factor into the toll rates as well to the extent it's led to increased traffic volume.

[Mapmikey]

So after a month with the Fredericksburg extension open, I have found that the mainline lanes SB after SR 610 are now wide open to Fredericksburg every day during afternoon rush.  So much so that I've stopped using the new extension.  There is a VMS before reaching SR 610 with ETA to Fredericksburg (has been 14 min for 15 miles consistently, now) that I can use to judge whether I should stay on the toll lanes, which are routinely $8-9 for the extension.

[Jmiles32]

So after a month with the Fredericksburg extension open, I have found that the mainline lanes SB after SR 610 are now wide open to Fredericksburg every day during afternoon rush.  So much so that I've stopped using the new extension.  There is a VMS before reaching SR 610 with ETA to Fredericksburg (has been 14 min for 15 miles consistently, now) that I can use to judge whether I should stay on the toll lanes, which are routinely $8-9 for the extension.

That's great news and honestly remarkable. What I'm curious about now is the existing Local and Thru lanes merge south of Exit 130 that pretty much acts as the new HO/T lanes terminus as well. My understanding is that the merge back to three lanes hasn't been horrible (or at least not at the level of the Garrisonsville or Occoquan bottleneck), so I'm wondering what other's experiences have been and if this is the case, would VDOT hold back on adding a fourth lane (or extending the Local/Thru lanes setup) to Exit 126?

[sprjus4]

Question about the Express Lane extension & traffic... how is the area of I-95 southbound around Garrisonville in the general purpose lanes in the afternoon? I recall it always congested where the HO/T lanes used to terminate. Has that been alleviated now that all the HO/T traffic isn't being dumped out anymore?

[froggie]

^ Isn't that what Mike just commented about?  Or were you looking for something more specific?

[Mapmikey]

To answer the last two questions (and more):

the mainline SB between Dale City and Garrisonville has pockets of stop and go. I'm trying to pay more attention to the piece between Dumfries and Garrisonville to see if I could ditch the toll lanes even sooner.  What is probably going to remain hung up: the Exit 148 ramp to 95 SB is very busy at afternoon rush and there is a steep hill immediately after, so given the steady truck traffic on 95 and that the loop ramp uphill means slow traffic trying to merge with freeway speeds, there is a high chance this location becomes an obstacle each day.

The old termination point of the toll lanes has been wide open since the extension because way fewer people are leaving the toll lanes here (and even fewer will once the direct toll lanes ramp to SR 630 Stafford CH opens).

I can only speak to the SB local/express merge on the weekends since I use Exit 133 to go home during the week.  Saturdays have been very crowded and I've seen the express lanes backed up to the Fall Hill Ave overpass more than once.  The local lanes don't back up that far as much.  You essentially have 6 lanes dropping to 3.  I think the last merge lane on the local lanes needs to be longer, and really, this would be where a 4th lane to Richmond should start (or extend the local lanes to Exit 126 and start the 4th lane there).  Curious to see if this improves with the ending of summer.

Incidentally, I don't think the transition lane VDOT built between VA 123 and VA 294 is doing all that much.  I can't pay real close attention because the toll lanes are pretty busy in this stretch and people are still caught off guard by the right lane becoming exit only at VA 294 on the toll lanes, so people keep making evasive maneuvers.  Also this part of the highway is going uphill directly into the sun.

[1995hoo]

....

Incidentally, I don't think the transition lane VDOT built between VA 123 and VA 294 is doing all that much.  I can't pay real close attention because the toll lanes are pretty busy in this stretch and people are still caught off guard by the right lane becoming exit only at VA 294 on the toll lanes, so people keep making evasive maneuvers.  Also this part of the highway is going uphill directly into the sun.

I haven't been on I-95 south in several months, but I suspect that transition lane gets used quite a bit by people who treat it as a passing lane, rather than as an extended merge/diverge area for people entering from 123 or exiting at the Prince William Parkway. We see that happen with onramp acceleration lanes in a good number of places around Northern Virginia (northbound I-395 near the Pentagon where the loop ramp from Route 110 enters is one where I used to see this all the time), so I have no reason to think a far longer auxiliary lane would be treated any differently. That sort of thing would be less obnoxious, in my view, if the transition lane fed a C/D roadway at the Prince William Parkway, but there is no such going southbound.

[sprjus4]

....

Incidentally, I don't think the transition lane VDOT built between VA 123 and VA 294 is doing all that much.  I can't pay real close attention because the toll lanes are pretty busy in this stretch and people are still caught off guard by the right lane becoming exit only at VA 294 on the toll lanes, so people keep making evasive maneuvers.  Also this part of the highway is going uphill directly into the sun.

I haven't been on I-95 south in several months, but I suspect that transition lane gets used quite a bit by people who treat it as a passing lane, rather than as an extended merge/diverge area for people entering from 123 or exiting at the Prince William Parkway. We see that happen with onramp acceleration lanes in a good number of places around Northern Virginia (northbound I-395 near the Pentagon where the loop ramp from Route 110 enters is one where I used to see this all the time), so I have no reason to think a far longer auxiliary lane would be treated any differently. That sort of thing would be less obnoxious, in my view, if the transition lane fed a C/D roadway at the Prince William Parkway, but there is no such going southbound.

Am I the only one that feels that lane would be more useful if it connected directly to that 4th southbound lane that drops just 1/2 mile before it? You would have to do some bridge / road widening to accommodate the entrance lanes from VA-123, but allowing 4 lanes of southbound to continue to VA-294, and become exit only, would at least drop it at a location where more traffic is exiting, and hopefully lessen some of the backup at the Occoquan.

Ultimately, the widening should continue further south, but I think as an interim project, repurposing this new lane to tie into the general purpose lane north of VA-123 would be a start.

[Alex4897]

I can only speak to the SB local/express merge on the weekends since I use Exit 133 to go home during the week.  Saturdays have been very crowded and I've seen the express lanes backed up to the Fall Hill Ave overpass more than once.  The local lanes don't back up that far as much.  You essentially have 6 lanes dropping to 3.  I think the last merge lane on the local lanes needs to be longer, and really, this would be where a 4th lane to Richmond should start (or extend the local lanes to Exit 126 and start the 4th lane there).  Curious to see if this improves with the ending of summer.

I travel down to Richmond several times a year and haven't used the Fredericksburg thru lanes at all since they've opened, each time I've avoided them and stuck to the local lanes I've saved myself 15-20+ minutes of traffic piled up in the thru lanes for the 6->3 lane drop. The signage at the thru/local split doesn't indicate that thru lanes are still I-95 which seems to be making a significant difference in traffic distribution between the two.
I'll second getting added capacity down to Exit 126 in one way or another, that's really where the traffic starts to pick up / end and I'm disappointed that it seems like VDOT's happy with finishing at Exit 130.

[rover]

In Stafford it looks like there is AMPLE room for the Express lanes to be bi-directional which makes the current setup all the more infuriating.

[froggie]

All well and good in Stafford County.  The problem is there isn't room for such in Fairfax County without some pretty significant engineering and construction (and probably right-of-way).  VDOT isn't going to create bi-directional lanes only to have to shunt that traffic back to the mainline when the reversible lanes are pointing southbound.  That would create a bottleneck not unlike what exists at the north end of the Beltway express lanes.

[sprjus4]

All well and good in Stafford County.  The problem is there isn't room for such in Fairfax County without some pretty significant engineering and construction (and probably right-of-way).

Perhaps VDOT should get the ball rolling on such a thing. Elevated or sunken express lanes are both options, and both have been successfully implemented in other areas. They're not impossible.

[Plutonic Panda]

All well and good in Stafford County.  The problem is there isn't room for such in Fairfax County without some pretty significant engineering and construction (and probably right-of-way).

Perhaps VDOT should get the ball rolling on such a thing. Elevated or sunken express lanes are both options, and both have been successfully implemented in other areas. They're not impossible.

Exactly

[Mapmikey]

All well and good in Stafford County.  The problem is there isn't room for such in Fairfax County without some pretty significant engineering and construction (and probably right-of-way).

Perhaps VDOT should get the ball rolling on such a thing. Elevated or sunken express lanes are both options, and both have been successfully implemented in other areas. They're not impossible.

Exactly

Where has anyone retrofitted a double deck roadway in an urban setting for 15 miles?  What would traffic be like while they did that retrofit?  This would be required around Woodbridge, possibly Dale City and everywhere north of Newington/VA 286.  Nearly all interchanges and flyovers between Fredericksburg and DC would have to be significantly altered or rebuilt entirely.  It would be cheaper to build a time machine and go back to the 1960s to try to convince VDOH that the region would grow to the extent that it has.  Probably also cheaper to build a real DC bypass for 95 thru-traffic which would drop the volumes on 95 to something more manageable.

VDOT has already estimated the cost of adding an additional lane to 95 from Thornburg to Springfield a few years ago to be $12B.  Making the express lanes bi-directional for 40+ miles would be in the same neighborhood.

Would it be better in the end than the present?  Yep.  Is VDOT ever going to embark on a project that is double their annual budget?  Don't see it.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah, yeah always the same crap. It can't be done because of cost or this or that blah blah blah.

[sprjus4]

Yeah, yeah always the same crap. It can't be done because of cost or this or that blah blah blah.

Agreed... And yet somehow Transurban invested billions of private dollars into the I-95 / I-495 / I-395 HO/T lane system over the last several years and it wasn't an issue.

Where has anyone retrofitted a double deck roadway in an urban setting for 15 miles?

1. San Antonio I-35: https://www.txdot.gov/35nexcentral.html

10 miles of elevated (2 to 3 lane in each direction) through travel lanes are currently being added to I-35 northeast of San Antonio.

2. Dallas I-635: https://www.ferrovial.com/en-us/business/projects/ih-635-managed-lanes-lbj-express-dallas/

Several years ago, 13 miles of I-635 was widened with 2 to 3 HO/T lanes in each direction, and around 5 miles was sunken. It's pretty impressive to drive on. Urban right of way constraints didn't prevent TxDOT from adding six HO/T lanes in this area, and they're bidirectional too.

Street View: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ELKwXLoPra14pEZ29?g_st=ic

3. Los Angeles I-110: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor_Transitway

In the late 1990s, two HOV lanes were constructed in either direction (bidirectional) for 10 miles, and includes around 3 miles of elevated viaduct carrying the lanes due to right of way constraints toward the northern end.

Street View: https://maps.app.goo.gl/H1pBvPnj3iGV7phG8?g_st=ic

—

I didn't even mention Texas' elevated "upper" "lower" deck setups around San Antonio, Austin, and I believe in a couple other places. It is most certainly a doable project to add bidirectional HO/T lanes on I-95 - claiming otherwise is just adding to Virginia's sad excuse of a traffic snarl which is I-95 in Northern Virginia.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ thank you. Just didn't have the mental energy to post anything more