I-495 and I-270 Managed Lanes

[Beltway]

I-540 doesn't seem to be a good candidate.

Currently, no.  I-40 from Wade to RTP is a much better candidate.

Definitely agree.

[1995hoo]

I-540 doesn't seem to be a good candidate.

Currently, no.  I-40 from Wade to RTP is a much better candidate.

Heh. That stretch of I-40 would have been a good candidate in the 1990s if HO/T lanes had existed then.

[sprjus4]

No edge cities to speak of on I-485 and I-540.

Tysons Corner is Fairfax County's central business district and a regional commercial center, and is the 12th largest CBD in the nation based on square feet of office space.

VA I-495 is a heavily used local commuter route in its own right with cities like Vienna, Falls Church, Fairfax and Alexandria.

Strongly disagree. I-485 is mostly a commuter route, the only thru-traffic use it gets is mostly US-74 thru traffic since that's the only freeway option - no freeway exists inside the beltway for US-74 thru traffic, US-74 follows congested arterial roadways, while I-485 is 70 mph interstate highway. It's a no brainer. I-85 and I-77 traffic may use it to bypass Charlotte, though conditions are usually free-flowing through those corridors.

I-485 serves the suburban developments that line the entire corridor, not to mention serves major activity centers near I-77, and serves the towns Stallings, Matthews, and Huntersville.

Either way, no matter what you think, HO/T lanes are already funded, and if I'm not mistaken, construction is already underway on part of it.

I-540 is the same, though nothing is under construction yet. Serves plenty of suburban developments, is a heavy commuter route, and activity centers near US-1.

And both routes see a good amount of congestion. I-540 is already 6-8 lanes, while the part they're currently building HO/T lanes on I-485 is also 6-8 lanes.

You could also claim I-540 connects the outer suburbs off I-87 and out east that are growing to Durham and the RTP.

Why are you against things when they're in North Carolina, but it's fine if it's in Virginia? The I-64 HO/T lanes on the High Rise Bridge corridor aren't serving much besides suburban development sprawl either. The I-95 HO/T lanes connect suburban sprawl into D.C. Not much different. I-495 serves local traffic and connects activity centers. I-485 and I-540 do the same.

Frankly, I'd rather see HO/T lanes in urban areas (such as proposed on I-485, I-540, etc.) and general purpose widenings on mainline's outside the city. For instance, people are more supportive of I-485 HO/T lanes, while there was fierce opposition to the I-77 HO/T lanes, and NCDOT is currently considering buying out their contract with Cintra and converting the HO/T lane north of I-485 into a third general purpose lane. I'm supportive of that proposal. I'd rather also see a new general purpose get added to the High Rise Bridge going to Bowers Hill rather than the HO/T lane. A lot of people would agree. When it's built to 8-lanes, than make the new lane an HOV or maybe 1 HO/T lane. The current 2 GP + 2 HO/T ultimate 2030 build out makes no sense, especially when it's tying into a 3 GP + 1 HO/T (the current HOV is planned to be converted).

[mrsman]

I think part of the criteria as to whether HOT lanes would be good for an area is whether there is enough employment concentration that can facilitate carpooling.  Sure, single drivers could pay toll to use the lanes.  But, I believe that the primary users should be carpool and transit, to the extent possible, and toll-payers come in to fill in any remaining capacity that can be used while still maintaining free-flowing conditions.

[sprjus4]

I think part of the criteria as to whether HOT lanes would be good for an area is whether there is enough employment concentration that can facilitate carpooling.  Sure, single drivers could pay toll to use the lanes.  But, I believe that the primary users should be carpool and transit, to the extent possible, and toll-payers come in to fill in any remaining capacity that can be used while still maintaining free-flowing conditions.

I don't see I-64 between Bowers Hill and I-464 fulfilling this goal - mostly SOV it seems. The existing HOV lanes east of I-464 are under-used during rush hour (though it's nice when you are HOV 2+ and to hop in them to bypass a slowdown, though that won't be an option once the HO/T lanes are in place) and the new HO/T lane segment that opened in January 2018 between I-264 and I-564 has roughly 70% of SOV vehicle usage IIRC.

[Beltway]

I think part of the criteria as to whether HOT lanes would be good for an area is whether there is enough employment concentration that can facilitate carpooling.  Sure, single drivers could pay toll to use the lanes.  But, I believe that the primary users should be carpool and transit, to the extent possible, and toll-payers come in to fill in any remaining capacity that can be used while still maintaining free-flowing conditions.

That is where Sprjus4 misses it.  I just can't see without some real traffic engineering studies that I-485 and I-540 would have enough car pooling to warrant HOV or HOT lanes.

The central parts of the I-564/I-64/I-264 HOT system clearly do, although I'll grant that the southerly part of the I-64 loop (H.R. Beltway) will need to prove itself in actual operation.  (And of course a failed HOV or HOT lane could be devolved back to general purpose).

I-495 HOT lanes clearly do support a lot of car pooling.

[sprjus4]

Feasibility studies on all of these proposed HO/T lanes have been completed if you want to study them for yourself.

Here's the studies, and each of them have detailed drawings that show how they would be built, all the proposed interchange connections & modifications, etc.

• Add 2 HO/T lanes in each direction between I-85 and Wade Ave along Interstate 40 for 30 miles. Cost Estimate - $1.046 - $1.093 billion. The proposed design is the exact same as the I-495 Express Lanes. Dedicated HO/T lane exits, and high-speed direct connections to the HO/T lanes at major junctions.
• Add 2 HO/T lanes in each direction on the entire length of Interstate 540 for 28 miles, in addition to 4 miles of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction along Interstate 87 between I-540 and I-440.Cost Estimate - $1.016 billion. The proposed design is very similar to the I-95 Express Lanes. Flyovers from the HO/T lanes to the right lane of the general purpose lanes before interchanges, and high-speed direct connections to the HO/T lanes at major junctions.
• Add 2 HO/T lanes in each direction between Wade Ave and the I-40 / I-87 / I-440 junction for 12 miles, in addition to 3 miles of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction along Interstate 87 / Interstate 440 between the I-40 / I-87 / I-440 junction, and the I-87 / I-440 split. Cost Estimate - $858.7 million. The proposed design would involve ingress and egress points between the right lane of the HO/T lane and the left general purpose lane. Similar to the proposed HO/T lanes in Hampton Roads, and the concept used on the recently opened I-77 HO/T lanes.

All in total, 75 miles of HO/T lanes are planned for the Raleigh / Durham area along I-40, I-87, and I-540 for approximately $2.967 billion total.

[Beltway]

Feasibility studies on all of these proposed HO/T lanes have been completed if you want to study them for yourself.

The same people that created the studies for Vanity Interstate I-87.  Nuff said.

[sprjus4]

The same people that created the studies for Vanity Interstate I-87.  Nuff said.

False. The feasibility study (singular) for upgrading 80 miles of US-17 was completed by AECOM. These studies were completed by Atkins, HNTB, and RK&K.

Not to mention, we get you hate I-87 and any mention of it, but how does a feasibility study that evaluated upgrading 80 miles of rural highway to interstate standards now discredit the state at everything they do?

FS-1504A evaluated upgrading 80 miles of US-17 to interstate standards by drafting conceptual alignments, determining obstacles along the path, and creating cost estimates based on the engineering drawings and many other factors including environmental. There was nothing vanity about the study. The overall "Raleigh-Norfolk" (which isn't even the primary goal for I-87 to begin with) concept may be vanity in your mind, but the study isn't. Just because you hate a road doesn't instantly render any study of that road discreditable and vanity.

You've taken your hate for I-87 beyond that corridor, and at that point it's a moot argument. Now every study the state does is vanity? Even regarding FS-1504A, your argument the study is vanity and discreditable essentially is moot. There's nothing to back that, with the exception that the whole I-87 corridor makes no sense because it's 20 miles longer than the direct routing, therefore it should not ever exist.

You've made the argument in the past that NCDOT makes everything cheaper on paper than reality. Then the funny thing is when they actually build that interchange or freeway, oh look, it actually costs similar to what the study said. A typical interchange is $7 - $10 million, and a freeway costs $25 - 30 million per mile. Upgrading a 4-lane highway to interstate standards costs around $14 - 20 million per mile. Just because it's more expensive in Virginia doesn't render it cheap down in NC.

[sprjus4]

The same people that created the studies for Vanity Interstate I-87.  Nuff said.

It's interesting because you state - "I just can't see without some real traffic engineering studies that I-485 and I-540 would have enough car pooling to warrant HOV or HOT lanes.", then I direct you to where a study is completed already that includes data, and you now instantly render it unreliable because it was conducted by the same state that did I-87. I mean, do you want VDOT to conduct the study on I-540? Would that be better?

You've done this in the past. You've asked for evidence or backup info, and when I provide it, it's now not credible or unreliable if it does not match your viewpoints. But when it does match your viewpoints, it's credible and reliable.

[Beltway]

The same people that created the studies for Vanity Interstate I-87.  Nuff said.

False. The feasibility study (singular) for upgrading 80 miles of US-17 was completed by AECOM. These studies were completed by Atkins, HNTB, and RK&K.

I was referring to the administrative agency that contracts with others for such studies, and is responsible for the outcomes.

Not to mention, we get you hate ...

Just because you hate ...

You've taken your hate ...

You're way too defensive about these projects, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way by opposition to such projects.  Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.

[sprjus4]

I was referring to the administrative agency that contracts with others for such studies, and is responsible for the outcomes.

That's NCDOT. Do you want VDOT to conduct these studies? Would that be better?

You're way too defensive about these projects, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way by opposition to such projects.  Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.

No, I'm mostly defensive over the fact because a study was conducted on a roadway for a project you think shouldn't occur, you now won't trust any study coming from the state. If the cost estimates don't meet the cost estimates of VDOT, you now won't trust any study coming from the state. Nothing actually valid about how the study was flawed, which as far as I'm aware, wasn't. The only point you keep making is because I-87 is vanity, the whole study discredits any study in North Carolina, and essentially is vanity. It was conducted in the manner any other study for interstate upgrade projects in NC is conducted. They've occurred for stretches of US-70, US-74, other parts of US-17 down in the southern half of the state, US-29, US-220, and other corridors.

You dodge the valid points I'm making about the flaws in your argument just to attack the minor points that support your viewpoints, and shoot anything I say down. It's quite obvious just looking at the way you reply. How about you take my entire response, and provide a logical response to everything in it to support your side of the argument instead of cherry picking little things out to attack. Then maybe this can get somewhere productive. Because at this point, in my mind, the arguments you're making make no logical sense. If you could further explain, then maybe they will.

[74/171FAN]

Locking thread for 24-hour cooldown.  Please stay on the topic of I-495 and I-270 moving forward.  What NCDOT is doing has nothing to do with VDOT and MDSHA.  -Mark

[Alps]

The same people that created the studies for Vanity Interstate I-87.  Nuff said.

False. The feasibility study (singular) for upgrading 80 miles of US-17 was completed by AECOM. These studies were completed by Atkins, HNTB, and RK&K.

I was referring to the administrative agency that contracts with others for such studies, and is responsible for the outcomes.

Not to mention, we get you hate ...

Just because you hate ...

You've taken your hate ...

You're way too defensive about these projects, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way by opposition to such projects.  Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.

You REALLY should step back.

[1995hoo]

So......I think the last point before the North Carolina discussion had to do with Maryland likely using ETLs instead of HO/T lanes. That makes me wonder what kind of signage is appropriate to notify drivers already using the lanes of the upcoming rules change. That's probably somewhat more important for northbound drivers from Virginia who are riding free as HOVs because the free passage would end at or near the state line and they may well want to exit before having to pay a toll. Obviously it'd also be desirable to inform southbound drivers eligible to claim HOV status that they can avoid the toll by doing so, but it somehow feels a little less "imperative" than warning northbound drivers because it seems to me the southbound driver is less likely to be reluctant to pay the toll (because he's already paying a toll in Maryland).


Edited to add: I suppose it'll also be interesting to see what provision is made to allow northbound users in Virginia to exit to the local lanes prior to the state line. This is of interest because Virginia doesn't have any slip ramps (or Toronto-style "basketweaves") on the Beltway. Unlike on I-95, once you're in the Beltway HO/T lanes, the only legal ways out (short of calling a tow truck) are to exit the highway or to drive to the far end where the express lanes end.

[Jmiles32]

In regards to the latest I-495 and I-270 P3 Program plans:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/hogan-plan-to-add-toll-lanes-to-beltway-i-270-heads-to-state-panel-for-key-vote/2019/06/04/6b91d488-86de-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html?utm_term=.bf5d7d404cf6

The Maryland Board of Public Works voted 2 to 1 Wednesday to allow the state to solicit private companies to build and operate toll lanes on Interstate 270 and the Capital Beltway as part of Gov. Larry Hogan's plan to ease traffic congestion in the Washington suburbs.

In a change to Hogan's initial proposal, the I-270 lanes will be built first. Adding toll lanes to the American Legion Bridge and Interstate 495 in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, which has been more controversial, will be phases 2 and 3.

Hogan said the American Legion Bridge, which connects Maryland and Virginia along the Beltway, needed the most immediate relief. However, he said he would "reluctantly"  prioritize I-270 because it was less controversial than the Beltway, where widening would require destroying more homes.


"This transformative project that we're voting on today is about finally taking the first step to move forward and to finally take action on an issue that unfortunately elected officials have literally ignored for decades,"  the Republican governor said. "It will result in less traffic, more peace of mind, cleaner air, and a much better quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Marylanders for decades to come."

He added, "I'm moving forward with 270 because more people want to do 270."

Delaying the bridge and Beltway portion by two years, he said, would give state transportation officials more time to work with leaders in Montgomery and Prince George's to address their concerns.

Very disappointed with this development as IMO the only reason why I-270 gets congested in the first place is because of the Legion Bridge to the south, and the multiple lanes drops to the north, both of which will not be addressed in this first phase.  Any first phase should start with a new legion bridge and then work its way north up both I-495 (south of the split) and then I-270. Save the stretch of I-495 east of the I-270 split (appears to be more controversial) for a later phase.

[vdeane]

Yeah, seriously.  They're starting with the part of the project that I'm not convinced is actually necessary to build at all, and leaving us in a situation where the part that is actually desperately needed never gets built.  Meanwhile, the I-95 express lanes north of Baltimore (also needed, though not quite as desperately) will never be what they should be because of politics over debt limits.

[famartin]

In regards to the latest I-495 and I-270 P3 Program plans:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/hogan-plan-to-add-toll-lanes-to-beltway-i-270-heads-to-state-panel-for-key-vote/2019/06/04/6b91d488-86de-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html?utm_term=.bf5d7d404cf6

The Maryland Board of Public Works voted 2 to 1 Wednesday to allow the state to solicit private companies to build and operate toll lanes on Interstate 270 and the Capital Beltway as part of Gov. Larry Hogan's plan to ease traffic congestion in the Washington suburbs.

In a change to Hogan's initial proposal, the I-270 lanes will be built first. Adding toll lanes to the American Legion Bridge and Interstate 495 in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, which has been more controversial, will be phases 2 and 3.

Hogan said the American Legion Bridge, which connects Maryland and Virginia along the Beltway, needed the most immediate relief. However, he said he would "reluctantly"  prioritize I-270 because it was less controversial than the Beltway, where widening would require destroying more homes.


"This transformative project that we're voting on today is about finally taking the first step to move forward and to finally take action on an issue that unfortunately elected officials have literally ignored for decades,"  the Republican governor said. "It will result in less traffic, more peace of mind, cleaner air, and a much better quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Marylanders for decades to come."

He added, "I'm moving forward with 270 because more people want to do 270."

Delaying the bridge and Beltway portion by two years, he said, would give state transportation officials more time to work with leaders in Montgomery and Prince George's to address their concerns.

Very disappointed with this development as IMO the only reason why I-270 gets congested in the first place is because of the Legion Bridge to the south, and the multiple lanes drops to the north, both of which will not be addressed in this first phase.  Any first phase should start with a new legion bridge and then work its way north up both I-495 (south of the split) and then I-270. Save the stretch of I-495 east of the I-270 split (appears to be more controversial) for a later phase.

Its unfortunate, but I suppose the only way people will finally get on board with widening the beltway is seeing how 270 widening doesn't do anything.  Aside from the widening, I'd love to see them try to straighten out the curvy sections of the beltway in the Bethesda area too, but that's probably hoping for too much.

[goobnav]

So basically this project is going to mess up the NW corner of the beltway and those trying to bypass Baltimore and New York to head to the New England, personally use it to go back to NE PA, not be done forever and day, just like the Mixing Bowl that took the better part of a decade and, not be done in a constructive way to regulate traffic flow to make this as less of a burden on traffic as it can be. 

Yeah, my faith in VDOT and MDSHA has gone from very little to none.  So, will avoid the DC and Baltimore metro areas like the plague until my late 70s and use US 17, begrudgingly to 66 and 81 if ever needed to visit family in PA. 

[famartin]

You can't blame the DOT. The local jurisdictions don't want widening. Why? Because it encourages people to live elsewhere and commute. They would rather keep them local and keep building density to ensure the tax base.

[Alps]

You can't blame the DOT. The local jurisdictions don't want widening. Why? Because it wipes out houses next to the highway, which encourages people to live elsewhere and commute. They would rather keep them local and keep building density to ensure the tax base.

FTFY

[famartin]

You can't blame the DOT. The local jurisdictions don't want widening. Why? Because it wipes out houses next to the highway, which encourages people to live elsewhere and commute. They would rather keep them local and keep building density to ensure the tax base.

FTFY

That's not the only reason people don't want to live in the beltway corridor. The high cost, high density and elevating age of most available living space are all general turnoffs to the average person.

[vdeane]

Yeah, my faith in VDOT and MDSHA has gone from very little to none.  So, will avoid the DC and Baltimore metro areas like the plague until my late 70s and use US 17, begrudgingly to 66 and 81 if ever needed to visit family in PA. 

How is VDOT being a problem here?  Their portion is mostly done with the rest on the way.  I blame MD and MD alone for this mess.

[sprjus4]

Yeah, my faith in VDOT and MDSHA has gone from very little to none.  So, will avoid the DC and Baltimore metro areas like the plague until my late 70s and use US 17, begrudgingly to 66 and 81 if ever needed to visit family in PA. 

How is VDOT being a problem here?  Their portion is mostly done with the rest on the way.  I blame MD and MD alone for this mess.

Agreed. VDOT is constructing their portion all the way to the state line. The HO/T lanes won't run all the way to the state line to begin with, but stub and ghost ramps will be constructed for future use.

Maryland is taking the cheap way out and not doing it. The I-270 part will be easy - all of the lanes exist - just repurposing them, and removing the barrier that separates local and thru traffic. That is the worst part about that project. Why would you get rid of a local / thru config just to squeeze HO/T lanes in? Because it's cheap, and they don't care that traffic will get worse in the now combined lanes. They just care about getting those rich folks around the traffic. VDOT on the other hand is constructing NEW local-thru lanes near Fredericksburg. I couldn't imagine them removing them in 25 years.

[1995hoo]

So basically this project is going to mess up the NW corner of the beltway and those trying to bypass Baltimore and New York to head to the New England, personally use it to go back to NE PA, not be done forever and day, just like the Mixing Bowl that took the better part of a decade and, not be done in a constructive way to regulate traffic flow to make this as less of a burden on traffic as it can be. 

Yeah, my faith in VDOT and MDSHA has gone from very little to none.  So, will avoid the DC and Baltimore metro areas like the plague until my late 70s and use US 17, begrudgingly to 66 and 81 if ever needed to visit family in PA. 

If you're heading north from Durham, you might consider going up US-501 to Lynchburg and then US-29 to Charlottesville, then west on I-64 to I-81. Or stay on US-29 up to US-15, then use that north past Leesburg and Frederick to Harrisburg. Or NC-/VA-86 to Danville and then either up US-29 or west on US-58 to US-220. No reason to go up I-95 to US-17, especially with construction ramping up in the Fredericksburg area.