HOT Lanes on I-95 in Virginia

[Mapmikey]

A contract has been signed to build these from SR 610 Garrisonville to SR 648 Edsall Rd above Springfield (29 miles).

Construction starting as early as this coming spring and finishing in 2015.

The HOT lane segment will be 3 lanes

Article - http://www.wtop.com/?nid=654&sid=2659581

Incidentally, this will then make 16 out of 17 years where my Fredericksburg to Bethesda commute is impacted by a major project (Springfield Interchange, Beltway HOT Lanes, I-95 widening from Newington to Woodbridge, now HOT lanes extension to Stafford County).  My bet is I will get 1 day of smooth wide open afternoon commuting - the day I retire in 2019.

Mapmikey

[froggie]

I was under the impression that there would be 3 lanes north of Prince William Pkwy but 2 lanes south of there.  This is verified on the VDOT news release.

[Mapmikey]

WTOP stands corrected, then...

This condition of a 73-year contract strikes me as funny:

"Return the asset to the Commonwealth in good working order at the end of the agreement" 

[Takumi]

You're right, that's pretty odd. Almost like it was copy-pasted from a car lease or something...

[1995hoo]

I'd like to see a rendering or diagram of the configuration they intend to use for the toll-paying traffic to move into the local lanes at the north end of the project. That is, HOVs will continue in the existing express lanes, but vehicles without the three passengers will be required to exit. I assume there will be some new slip ramp constructed somewhere near the existing Turkeycock ramps to allow for this. A flyover ramp dumping such traffic into the right side of the local lanes, much like the existing southbound HOV exit at Turkeycock, seems preferable, but I could see why they might try to work in a left-lane merge because of the problem of right-lane exits and entrances through there in short order (Beltway, Edsall, Turkeycock, and VA-236).

[Mapmikey]

This could be done by changing the 395 NB slip ramp to the NB HOV to the left side a little north of the current location and use the bridge to allow the NB HOV slip ramp underneath 395 to end up on the righthand side of 395...

[froggie]

According to the conceptual design plans dated September (warning:  29MB file), the plan is to keep the existing HOV ramps at Turkeycock as-is and build a new flyover-ramp from the northbound HOV to northbound 395 (shown on the last page).

[qguy]

conceptual design plans

It may be just me, but that link doesn't seem to be opening the PDF.

[1995hoo]

According to the conceptual design plans dated September (warning:  29MB file), the plan is to keep the existing HOV ramps at Turkeycock as-is and build a new flyover-ramp from the northbound HOV to northbound 395 (shown on the last page).

Thanks for that. Interesting. ("qguy," it loaded fine for me, just took a while to open. As froggie notes, it's a 29 MB file.) The downside of that flyover is that the Duke Street exit there (Exit 3A towards Landmark Mall) is a fairly busy ramp already, so putting in a right-hand exit creates a weave situation. There is no ideal solution, though; you either create a weave situation or you put in a left-lane merge.

The people in those very large townhouses at Landmark Mews will lose the trees that buffer them from the highway, but I find it hard to sympathize there because they bought right next to the Interstate. I remember in early 2001 I looked at a townhouse in Overlook (down Edsall Road from there) that was farther from I-395 than Landmark Mews and I still said "forget it" within 3 minutes because of the highway noise.

[cpzilliacus]

According to the conceptual design plans dated September (warning:  29MB file), the plan is to keep the existing HOV ramps at Turkeycock as-is and build a new flyover-ramp from the northbound HOV to northbound 395 (shown on the last page).

Thank you for sharing this.  That "missing" exit point from the HOV/express roadway to northbound I-395 has been needed for a long time. 

I can understand that when the Shirley Highway (it was I-95 back then) was rebuilt for the busway (as it was then called), the idea behind those lanes was to move bus traffic north to D.C., Rosslyn, Crystal City and the Pentagon in the morning, and south from those points in the afternoons.  But since the VDH decided to allow southbound traffic to enter the roadway in the afternoons, it would have made sense to allow northbound traffic to exit there in the  mornings. 

[1995hoo]

According to the conceptual design plans dated September (warning:  29MB file), the plan is to keep the existing HOV ramps at Turkeycock as-is and build a new flyover-ramp from the northbound HOV to northbound 395 (shown on the last page).

Thank you for sharing this.  That "missing" exit point from the HOV/express roadway to northbound I-395 has been needed for a long time.  

I can understand that when the Shirley Highway (it was I-95 back then) was rebuilt for the busway (as it was then called), the idea behind those lanes was to move bus traffic north to D.C., Rosslyn, Crystal City and the Pentagon in the morning, and south from those points in the afternoons.  But since the VDH decided to allow southbound traffic to enter the roadway in the afternoons, it would have made sense to allow northbound traffic to exit there in the  mornings.  

The other point to remember is that the reversible carriageway originally ended just to the south of the interchange with Route 644, pretty close to where the Franconia—Springfield Parkway HOV exit is today. So there wasn't really much reason to provide for a northbound exit at Turkeycock when they first built the express lanes. True, the same might be said of the southbound entrance there, but that entrance proved to serve a very useful purpose in allowing thru traffic to bypass the weave area in the old Springfield Interchange between the Beltway and Route 644.

It might have made sense to add a provision for a northbound exit during the early 1990s when they extended the facility south to Dumfries, but I suppose they probably felt that the ramp just to the north of Newington served that purpose.

The Mark Center BRAC monstrosity gives new urgency to finding a way to allow HOV traffic to exit in that area. I know there's a new ramp planned at the Seminary interchange (why this was not thought of and made part of the plans for that building from the start is something I will never understand), but that interchange is failing as it is.

[cpzilliacus]

The other point to remember is that the reversible carriageway originally ended just to the south of the interchange with Route 644, pretty close to where the Franconia—Springfield Parkway HOV exit is today. So there wasn't really much reason to provide for a northbound exit at Turkeycock when they first built the express lanes. True, the same might be said of the southbound entrance there, but that entrance proved to serve a very useful purpose in allowing thru traffic to bypass the weave area in the old Springfield Interchange between the Beltway and Route 644.

I remember very well when the express/HOV lanes ended just south of Va. 644. Doesn't seem that long ago.  Do you remember the interim concurrent-flow HOV lanes that ran south from the end of the barrier-separated lanes for a while in the early 1990's (and maybe back to the 1980's - I don't remember exactly when they were built)?

It might have made sense to add a provision for a northbound exit during the early 1990s when they extended the facility south to Dumfries, but I suppose they probably felt that the ramp just to the north of Newington served that purpose.

I suppose you are correct - though until the Springfield Interchange reconstruction was done, I-95 from Newington north to the Springfield Interchange was normally a slow and miserable trip.

The Mark Center BRAC monstrosity gives new urgency to finding a way to allow HOV traffic to exit in that area. I know there's a new ramp planned at the Seminary interchange (why this was not thought of and made part of the plans for that building from the start is something I will never understand), but that interchange is failing as it is.

Agreed that there should have been a ramp facing south into the reversible lanes at Seminary Road - in my opinion, it should have been there years ago.

[1995hoo]

The other point to remember is that the reversible carriageway originally ended just to the south of the interchange with Route 644, pretty close to where the Franconia—Springfield Parkway HOV exit is today. So there wasn't really much reason to provide for a northbound exit at Turkeycock when they first built the express lanes. True, the same might be said of the southbound entrance there, but that entrance proved to serve a very useful purpose in allowing thru traffic to bypass the weave area in the old Springfield Interchange between the Beltway and Route 644.

I remember very well when the express/HOV lanes ended just south of Va. 644. Doesn't seem that long ago.  Do you remember the interim concurrent-flow HOV lanes that ran south from the end of the barrier-separated lanes for a while in the early 1990's (and maybe back to the 1980's - I don't remember exactly when they were built)?

....

I vaguely remember that. At that time I lived a short distance east of WT Woodson High in Fairfax (my parents still live there) and when we needed to go south we usually took 123 south to Occoquan just to avoid the mess of I-95 and the Springfield Interchange. Then when the major construction was going on in the early 1990s to extend the express lanes to Dumfries I was away at college in Charlottesville, so I missed the worst of that.

What I recall most about I-95 in those years was when they set up a "shoulder lane" similar to the ones on I-66 between Fair Oaks and the Beltway but without the "X/arrow" lane-control signals or the different-colored surface (the latter recently disappeared from I-66 during the resurfacing). There were white signs on the side of the road saying when the shoulder could be used as a lane, but some tractor-trailer driver ignored them and promptly pancaked a guy who had stopped on the shoulder when his Mustang broke down or got a flat or something.


BTW, regarding Seminary Road, I saw a drawing of the plans for an HOV ramp there. It won't quite be a mirror of the existing ramp on the northern side of that interchange because it's planned to connect to the top-level overpass where Seminary flies over everything, rather than to the intermediate level. That makes some sense, I suppose, because putting it on the intermediate level would require drivers to make a right turn and then two immediate lefts, ultimately going through three traffic lights just in that interchange, and then they would have to use Beauregard to access the Mark Center. A better long-term solution would be to rebuild that whole failing interchange, but that's obviously unrealistic both financially and in terms of the disruption it would cause and the limited space available.

[cpzilliacus]

I remember very well when the express/HOV lanes ended just south of Va. 644. Doesn't seem that long ago.  Do you remember the interim concurrent-flow HOV lanes that ran south from the end of the barrier-separated lanes for a while in the early 1990's (and maybe back to the 1980's - I don't remember exactly when they were built)?

....

I vaguely remember that. At that time I lived a short distance east of WT Woodson High in Fairfax (my parents still live there) and when we needed to go south we usually took 123 south to Occoquan just to avoid the mess of I-95 and the Springfield Interchange. Then when the major construction was going on in the early 1990s to extend the express lanes to Dumfries I was away at college in Charlottesville, so I missed the worst of that.

Oh, I recall the construction work from Springfield extending the barrier-separated roadway south (in stages) to Va. 234 at Dumfries.

That was a pretty big and impressive job.

What I recall most about I-95 in those years was when they set up a "shoulder lane" similar to the ones on I-66 between Fair Oaks and the Beltway but without the "X/arrow" lane-control signals or the different-colored surface (the latter recently disappeared from I-66 during the resurfacing). There were white signs on the side of the road saying when the shoulder could be used as a lane, but some tractor-trailer driver ignored them and promptly pancaked a guy who had stopped on the shoulder when his Mustang broke down or got a flat or something.

I remember that concurrent-flow HOV lane as well, and it was very much like the arrangement on I-66 between I-495 and U.S. 50.

BTW, regarding Seminary Road, I saw a drawing of the plans for an HOV ramp there. It won't quite be a mirror of the existing ramp on the northern side of that interchange because it's planned to connect to the top-level overpass where Seminary flies over everything, rather than to the intermediate level. That makes some sense, I suppose, because putting it on the intermediate level would require drivers to make a right turn and then two immediate lefts, ultimately going through three traffic lights just in that interchange, and then they would have to use Beauregard to access the Mark Center. A better long-term solution would be to rebuild that whole failing interchange, but that's obviously unrealistic both financially and in terms of the disruption it would cause and the limited space available.

I am not a civil engineer, but still, WOW - a ramp from the I-395 Express/HOV lanes to the "upper" level of that interchange would be, well, high, off the ground. 

But it might be  a better alternative, given the constraints you correctly mention.

[Mapmikey]

Progress report:

Recently, the new construction portion of the I-95 Express Lanes reached a milestone where there is now at least one layer of pavement from the south end of the current HOV end to the approach to the last flyover at Garrisonville.

The flyovers at Newington and Dumfries are essentially complete.  The Garrisonville flyover is built but the approaches have not been paved.

The 3rd lane is finished from VA 294 north for a ways (can't tell how far north it is fully finished).

The entertwined project involving transition lanes and shoulders in Prince William County is pretty far along as well. 

One thing is for sure that the two projects have destroyed the pavement on mainline I-95 in lower Prince William County.  They kept scraping the lane markings when they shifted the lanes around and the bad winter has caused a lot of those scraped areas to become ruts and holes, especially where they coincide with the original concrete seams of the roadway.

Mapmikey


BGSs are starting to go up.  They are calling slip ramps/flyovers that go to mainline 95 as LOCAL exits, listing all the exits you can get to before the next opportunity to move to the mainline.  Ramps/flyovers that connect directly to the intersecting route are being called EXPRESS exits.  Like the beltway, there are no exit numbers.

No idea what I-395's part of this looks like as I haven't been on it since the project started...

Mapmikey

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: How Virginia's new HOT lanes will work

We're about a half year from the opening of the high-occupancy toll lanes Interstate 95/395 in Northern Virginia. Using the 95 Express Lanes will be one of the most complicated experiences drivers will face in the D.C. region, different even from traveling in our first set of HOT lanes on the Capital Beltway.

[1995hoo]

Washington Post: How Virginia's new HOT lanes will work

We're about a half year from the opening of the high-occupancy toll lanes Interstate 95/395 in Northern Virginia. Using the 95 Express Lanes will be one of the most complicated experiences drivers will face in the D.C. region, different even from traveling in our first set of HOT lanes on the Capital Beltway.

Heh. You might recognize the author of some of the comments on that blog entry.

[froggie]

I did.  I "got tired of them"...)

[1995hoo]

I did.  I "got tired of them"...)

Yeah, that guy sneedel had too much to say. 


(In all seriousness, part of my motivation for saying so much, aside from being bored with the conference call I was half-listening to, was to prod Dr. Gridlock to report more on the issues I raised. The segment-based tolling has not been mentioned much, if at all, by the local media.)

[jeffandnicole]

I did.  I "got tired of them"...)

Yeah, that guy sneedel had too much to say. 


(In all seriousness, part of my motivation for saying so much, aside from being bored with the conference call I was half-listening to, was to prod Dr. Gridlock to report more on the issues I raised. The segment-based tolling has not been mentioned much, if at all, by the local media.)

Probably because the lanes won't be open for another 6 months.  It's almost useless at this point to provide much information, because people won't retain it.  After all, think back to news stories in January and try to remember what you heard!

[1995hoo]

I did.  I "got tired of them"...)

Yeah, that guy sneedel had too much to say. 


(In all seriousness, part of my motivation for saying so much, aside from being bored with the conference call I was half-listening to, was to prod Dr. Gridlock to report more on the issues I raised. The segment-based tolling has not been mentioned much, if at all, by the local media.)

Probably because the lanes won't be open for another 6 months.  It's almost useless at this point to provide much information, because people won't retain it.  After all, think back to news stories in January and try to remember what you heard!

"Polar vortex"!