Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Revive 755]

Regarding I-270, mtantillo said the signage there predates the FHWA's adoption of "express" as a term for managed lanes, so that probably explains a lot. Certainly many of us in the DC area are accustomed to thinking of "express" and "local" in the sense used to refer to the trains on the New York subway (e.g., when I go to New York I take the 2/3 express from Penn Station because it's two stops to my destination versus nine stops if I take the 1 local). I-270 uses the terminology in something similar to that sense—all exits are from the local lanes. I tend to agree with vdeane that most of us were accustomed of thinking of "express lanes" in that context and the example cited in Toronto is consistent with that.

I think I missed something:  When did FHWA officially adopt "express" for only managed lanes?

Is there a new term FHWA want used for current "express" lanes that are not managed?  Other examples I can think of that are signed using express:

* I-80 in Council Bluffs, Iowa
* I-90/I-90/Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago
* I-70 and I-44 in St. Louis

[Mapmikey]

....

I-95/495 would be improved if they added Baltimore underneath the Alexandria on the Local BGS approaching the split.

I agree with that and I suggested it to a couple of people at VDOT; they said they didn't want to suggest to long-distance traffic that they should add to the congestion in the "Local" lanes. Never mind that a perfectly valid way to reach Baltimore is to use said local lanes to I-295 if you want to use the BW Parkway route (and some mapping software will sometimes suggest just that due to the shorter distance, though there are plenty of reasons not to go that way if you know the roads).

Regarding I-270, mtantillo said the signage there predates the FHWA's adoption of "express" as a term for managed lanes, so that probably explains a lot. Certainly many of us in the DC area are accustomed to thinking of "express" and "local" in the sense used to refer to the trains on the New York subway (e.g., when I go to New York I take the 2/3 express from Penn Station because it's two stops to my destination versus nine stops if I take the 1 local). I-270 uses the terminology in something similar to that sense—all exits are from the local lanes. I tend to agree with vdeane that most of us were accustomed of thinking of "express lanes" in that context and the example cited in Toronto is consistent with that.

A different solution entirely would be to have the split be on I-95 before the Springfield Interchange.  This can be done with little construction on the beltway itself beyond jersey walls and a ramp would need to be constructed here to connect I-395 to the outer loop ramp from WB Franconia Rd.  The idea would then be to sign I-95 as it is now which would be for Annapolis and Baltimore while the new ramp from 95/395 would be signed as I-495 Van Dorn St and Alexandria.  Thus I-95 and I-495 would be separate on the outer loop until reaching Maryland.  I-495 pull through BGSs on the Beltway can then list Baltimore so anyone who does end up there can know they don't need to figure out a plan B.

[Dirt Roads]

Regarding I-270, mtantillo said the signage there predates the FHWA's adoption of "express" as a term for managed lanes, so that probably explains a lot. Certainly many of us in the DC area are accustomed to thinking of "express" and "local" in the sense used to refer to the trains on the New York subway (e.g., when I go to New York I take the 2/3 express from Penn Station because it's two stops to my destination versus nine stops if I take the 1 local). I-270 uses the terminology in something similar to that sense—all exits are from the local lanes. I tend to agree with vdeane that most of us were accustomed of thinking of "express lanes" in that context and the example cited in Toronto is consistent with that.

I think I missed something:  When did FHWA officially adopt "express" for only managed lanes?

Is there a new term FHWA want used for current "express" lanes that are not managed?  Other examples I can think of that are signed using express:

* I-80 in Council Bluffs, Iowa
* I-90/I-90/Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago
* I-70 and I-44 in St. Louis

You didn't miss anything, nor did 1995Hoo imply that the FHWA uses a term other than "Express Lane" for the NJTP version of "Through Lane" versus "Local Lane" (in some states they still use the term "Thru Lane").  But FHWA did accept (and acknowledge) many states use of the term "Express Lane" for managed lanes, and the MUTCD incorporated "Express Lanes End" signs to deal with related issues.  In fact, the R3-42 and R3-45 signs (Express Lane Ends) are officially listed as "Priced Managed Lane Ends" in the MUTCD.  But it is clear that FHWA has acknowledged that many states use the term "Express Lane" as a branding name for their managed lanes.

All that being said, there is no reason that R3-42 and R3-45 shouldn't be used for traditional "Thru Lanes".

<corrected the quotations>

[jeffandnicole]

....

I-95/495 would be improved if they added Baltimore underneath the Alexandria on the Local BGS approaching the split.

I agree with that and I suggested it to a couple of people at VDOT; they said they didn't want to suggest to long-distance traffic that they should add to the congestion in the "Local" lanes. Never mind that a perfectly valid way to reach Baltimore is to use said local lanes to I-295 if you want to use the BW Parkway route (and some mapping software will sometimes suggest just that due to the shorter distance, though there are plenty of reasons not to go that way if you know the roads).

Regarding I-270, mtantillo said the signage there predates the FHWA's adoption of "express" as a term for managed lanes, so that probably explains a lot. Certainly many of us in the DC area are accustomed to thinking of "express" and "local" in the sense used to refer to the trains on the New York subway (e.g., when I go to New York I take the 2/3 express from Penn Station because it's two stops to my destination versus nine stops if I take the 1 local). I-270 uses the terminology in something similar to that sense—all exits are from the local lanes. I tend to agree with vdeane that most of us were accustomed of thinking of "express lanes" in that context and the example cited in Toronto is consistent with that.

I won't say I've been there very often, but the times I have driven thru the area I find the express lanes more congested than the local lanes.

[mrsman]

Is it feasible to go 3 hot lanes with a zipper 2 with rush, one contraflow similar to what is done on 15 in San Diego

That’s sort of what the shoulder proposal would be, there would be a HO/T shoulder in each direction that would open up in the off peak direction while the existing reversible would handle the peak direction.

That is what is going to be implemented over the next few years on I-64 in Norfolk where the existing reversible lanes are, and what I believe is proposed for I-95.

The problem with I-95 is that peak directions seem to be both ways especially on busy weekends, that warrants a full 2+2 HO/T buildout.

I completely agree.  The drive between the Beltway down to almost Richmond seems to be horrendous at all times.  Both directions need more capacity, and this can only be readily achieved with a 2-way toll lane setup.  There really aren't any alternatives for travel if you are traveling in the reverse peak direction - VRE service seems to be limited to forward direction in the commute direction to DC. 

3 GP + 2 Toll lanes in each direction would handle the demand along this very busy stretch of highway.  3 GP alone cannot at any time other than 1-5 a.m.

[1995hoo]

You’re correct about VRE—it is a peak-direction service and it also runs only on weekdays (but not federal holidays).

[davewiecking]

Currently, yes. Increasing VRE service is the main reason for the additional train bridge over the Potomac, and also the extra track about to be added along this corridor.

[davewiecking]

And speaking of the HOT lanes, I was looking at the NEXT plans, and noticed that this project does not include the GW Pkwy interchange, but does subsume the southbound CD lanes connecting these ramps and the Georgetown Pike (VA-193) interchange. This makes sense, because there’s no telling what or when MD will do something with the ALMB over the Potomac. Transurban started removing half of the VA-193 bridge last week.

[mrsman]

And speaking of the HOT lanes, I was looking at the NEXT plans, and noticed that this project does not include the GW Pkwy interchange, but does subsume the southbound CD lanes connecting these ramps and the Georgetown Pike (VA-193) interchange. This makes sense, because there’s no telling what or when MD will do something with the ALMB over the Potomac. Transurban started removing half of the VA-193 bridge last week.

VA is moving ahead and MD is falling behind.  The new MD governonr to be elected this coming November could dicatate a lot of transport policy.  If the Democrat wins, I don't expect any HOT lane expansion into MD, even between 270/495 and the bridge.

There is probably no appetite for the massive land takings necessary for HOT lanes to extend along 495 to College Park, but most of the land necessary to expand lanes from the bridge to 270/Shady Grove is within the existing highway right of way.  It just needs some political will.  Especially given that other bridges over the Potomac are not happening, so the only relief would be HOT lanes on the bridge.