VA I-95/I-395 toll lanes

[mightyace]

VA transport secretary Homer says August Go/No-Go time for VA 95/395 toll lanes

See http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4027

[njroadhorse]

I'll support anything that relieves that congestion

[74/171FAN]

Problem there is, especially on the weekends, you have such an even directional split that expanding the reversible lanes won't do squat for the reverse direction.  See this all the time on the weekend, where NB 95 traffic will jam up on Saturday (when the HOV is running south/outbound), and SB jams up on Sunday (when HOV is running north/inbound).

This could be a huge problem if the HOT lanes are implemented especially north of VA 123.  Basically I-95 will have 11 main lanes with 7 going in one direction between VA 123 and I-395/I-495(with a 4-3-4 configuration as VDOT is currently adding a 4th lane in each direction between VA 123 and SR 7100/Fairfax County Pkwy).  I-395 will experience the same along with the 9 lanes with 6 in one direction(3-3-3) along with I-95 from VA 123 to as far south as VA 3.  Traffic could definitely accumulate on the side the HOV/HOT lanes aren't running and could heighten congestion on I-95 South possibly as far as I-295(highly unlikely but it could happen).   

[74/171FAN]

Alexandria and Arlington County NIMBY'S on the loose on the I-95/I-395 proposed HOT Lanes

[Revive 755]

^ You can find NIMBY's for anything, but if you look on a blog, you are more likely to find more extreme positions held by a few.

[74/171FAN]

^ You can find NIMBY's for anything, but if you look on a blog, you are more likely to find more extreme positions held by a few

Of course but Arlington County was(and still is) weary of I-66 so we'll see????

[74/171FAN]

Homer now says that the deal for the HOT lanes is almost finalized  http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1700141

[74/171FAN]

But they've now been delayed due to not having money  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081702157.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[froggie]

IMO, the proposal as it stands is just about dead.  At best it's on life support.  Arlington County is threatening a lawsuit against the project should it proceed, and Alexandria is considering joining any such lawsuit.

Amongst numerous smaller complaints about the project, there are three big complaints that I'm hearing the most.  First is that it will induce a lot of new traffic and create a lot more congestion.  This argument has some merit, since the project adds lanes up to, but not across, the 14th St Bridge...so it will incur even worse problems at the 14th St Bridge and I-395 in DC.

The second big complaint is an offshoot of provisions of the Beltway HO/T lane project that are now coming to light:  that the state will have to reimburse Fluor-Transurban (who's building the Beltway lanes and would also build the 95/395 lanes) if toll collections don't reach a certain level, or if HOV traffic (which will be toll free) is too high.  On a related note, there are concerns that the 95/395 HO/T projct will include "non-compete clauses", which means VDOT will be unable to make any improvements to the mainline 95/395 lanes or nearby parallel routes.  Not sure if the Beltway lanes also have this provision, but the possibility of it has generated a lot of opposition to the project.

Lastly is that the revenue from the toll part of the HO/T lanes would not be going to VDOT for road improvements or the local area for transit improvements, but instead goes to the private builder/operator:  Fluor-Transurban.


While I'm a supporter of HO/T lanes in principle, this particular proposal has so many problems I hope it dies.  Permanently.

[Chris]

First is that it will induce a lot of new traffic and create a lot more congestion.

This argument is usually grossly overrated though. The big question is if traffic wouldn't increase anyway. Other cities that don't build new roads show traffic increases anyway. The best way seems to be to handle that increase right with proper infrastructure instead of doing nothing. It's not like people go to work 3 times a day once a road is widened. It's mostly new traffic from either new development or people who took other roads before to avoid congestion.

However, opponents of widenings usually put up this argument as being very important, that you cannot build your way out of congestion. However, should we also stop building new hospitals and schools? Growing population means that infrastructure has to grow accordingly.

[froggie]

In this particular case, traffic would most likely increase anyway, since there's a lot of pent-up demand.  But the problem here, especially north of the Beltway, is that the 14th St Bridge is already a noted bottleneck.  Speeding up additional traffic heading north of the Beltway only to have them hit the brakes for even longer between the Pentagon and the bridge is not a good way to reduce congestion.  Sure it may reduce congestion along the corridor, but it's going to significantly increase it at the 14th St Bridge.

[mtantillo]

I've been closely following this project and the Beltway HOT lanes project for the past couple of years.  I agree with Froggie in that I support HOT lanes in general, including the Beltway HOT lanes (though it would have been nice to see a tad bit more coordination with Maryland), but I do not like the idea of the I-95/395 HOT lanes as is. 

Believe it or not, I actually support Arlington County's recent decision to sue over the NEPA documentation.  I'm sorry, but when you are implementing a project that could have vast implications on transportation along the corridor, a Categorical Exclusion is not sufficient documentation.  That is Arlington's argument.  Categorical Exclusions are reserved for projects with very minimal to no environmental impacts, and are typically used for routine projects such as bridge repairs or paving jobs.  HOT lanes have the potential to alter travel patterns quite significantly.  During rush hours, there will be more lanes available than there are now, and people have to get to them somehow.  During non-rush hours, the lanes will be more restricted than they currently are, as one cannot use them unless they have 3 people or pay a toll.  This could push more people into the general purpose lanes or onto local streets.  I'm not saying that any of these issues should stop the project, I'm only saying that the public has a right to know what the impacts will be on traffic flow, neighborhoods, non-compete clauses etc. before the construction begins. The way this is typically done is through an EIS (if there will be major impacts) or an EA (if the exact magnitude of the impacts is unknown).  I think an EA would have been much more appropriate than a CE, although the Beltway HOT lanes have an EIS. 

Also, an EA or EIS is going to have to evaluate alternatives, and the public will have to see the results.  I get a feeling the private firm tasked with building these lanes does not want the public to know the alternatives, as then the public may realize that there are better alternatives than the one they are proposing. 

In my opinion, what they are proposing will work fine on I-395, so long as they can address the safety issue and the lack of shoulders in the HOT roadway.  The proposal will not work on I-95 though.  During weekdays, traffic has peaks northbound in the AM and southbound in the PM, and the HOV/HOT lanes operate fine one way at a time.  But on weekends, traffic is heavy in both directions, and whichever direction does not have the HOV roadway is always tied up.  What they really ought to do is find a way to build a 4 lane HOT roadway on I-95 that can operate in both directions with a movable barrier.  During rush hours, you can operate 3/1 in the peak direction, and on weekends, 2/2.  Slip ramps would be needed at Springfield to take traffic from the I-95 HOT lanes to/from the mainline in the direction that the I-395 lanes are not operating in...in the direction the I-395 lanes are open, the I-95 lanes would tie in directly.  It would require some alteration of interchanges (Prince William Parkway and Route 123), but it would be worth it IMHO. 

[froggie]

I disagree that the 395 segment as proposed will work fine.  Perhaps in the afternoon, but in the morning all it'd do is add to the bottleneck at the 14th St Bridge.

Tolling the lanes north of the Beltway is doable (though with the revenue going to corridor enhancements, not the pockets of some private corporation), but adding lanes north of the Beltway is a non-starter IMO.

BTW, the slip lanes you say are needed already exist, south of SR 644, though if you want 2 lanes on the slip ramp you'd have to redo the northbound one.

[rawmustard]

Arlington: Race a Factor in HOT Lanes

Can we as a society stop using the term "racism" to situations where it clearly doesn't apply? Plus, I hope the voters in Arlington County make sure they unelect the commissioners who approved this lawsuit, because it's not the place of county government to make these kinds of lawsuits. 

[froggie]

They probably won't "un-elect" them, because by and large it's Arlington County residents who oppose the HOT lanes...

[froggie]

And now Alexandria is officially opposed...

[mightyace]

And now Alexandria is officially opposed...

And, to show their ignorance, the Washington Examiner used a picture of a manned toll booth that also had an automated coin drop when AFAIK these proposed HOT lanes will be ETC only thus having no toll booths.

[froggie]

In case any of you haven't heard yet, VDOT has reduced the scope of the 95/395 HO/T lane project.  The revised scope extends from Garrisonville Rd (SR 610) in Stafford County to just north of Edsall Rd (SR 648), north of which the existing HOV lanes will remain as-is.  VDOT hopes to begin construction next year.

Here's VDOT's press release on the subject.

The project also includes construction of an HOV ramp from the HOV lanes to Seminary Rd to/from the south...due in no small part to the HUGE traffic nightmare expected when the BRAC-related Mark Center opens.  Also mentioned is a "direct link" between the 95/395 HO/T lanes and the I-495 Beltway HO/T lanes currently under construction.  How VDOT plans on implementing this connection between the Springfield Interchange and the start of the Beltway HO/T lanes near Braddock Rd is still unclear.

VDOT will continue to study how to extend the HO/T lanes south to Massaponax (south of Fredericksburg)...the originally proposed terminus for the HO/T lanes.

The articles cite Arlington County's lawsuit as a reason behind the revised project scope.  As I mentioned 2 years ago, Alexandria was also opposed to the lanes, which might be why they won't exist on Alexandria's portion of I-395, either.  Though not cited in the articles, there's speculation that difficulty in obtaining financing is another reason behind the reduction in scope.