VA Turnpike

[sprjus4]

Straying into fictional territory, but I do think a zipper setup might work on a shorter section of 95...I'm thinking Woodbridge to Springfield.  South of Woodbridge (really Prince William Pkwy), there's more room in the median so better able to build two express carriageways.  Likewise, north of Springfield I don't think anything bigger than what exists would work.

Downside of having express lanes in both directions is you'd by standard need to have at least one semi-full paved shoulder on each side.  That would be tough to do through Newington.

Some regions have gotten away without providing a shoulder, and merely have a setup similar to I-495 but with the inner lane pressed up on the wall, usually due to restricted right of way constraints. Not suggesting it for this region, but it is an option.

Hampton Roads's currently under construction system will feature at least two portions that will have 1 HO/T lane in each direction, plus a paved shoulder that will be opened up during peak hours to provide 2. During those peak hours, there would be no shoulder. IMO, they should merely just make it a full-time 2 lanes each way to at least allow passing slower vehicles. Implement technology along the corridor that can close the shoulder lane if needed for an emergency, but otherwise let it operate full time.

[Angelo71]

A Virginia Turnpike could be I-81 until I-66, and then I-66 then to I-95 then I-64?
Or there could be multiple
Virginia Turnpike-Blue Ridge Turnpike I-81
Virginia Turnpike-Coastal Turnpike I-95 and then I-64

[1995hoo]

Straying into fictional territory, but I do think a zipper setup might work on a shorter section of 95...I'm thinking Woodbridge to Springfield.  South of Woodbridge (really Prince William Pkwy), there's more room in the median so better able to build two express carriageways.  Likewise, north of Springfield I don't think anything bigger than what exists would work.

Downside of having express lanes in both directions is you'd by standard need to have at least one semi-full paved shoulder on each side.  That would be tough to do through Newington.

Some regions have gotten away without providing a shoulder, and merely have a setup similar to I-495 but with the inner lane pressed up on the wall, usually due to restricted right of way constraints. Not suggesting it for this region, but it is an option.

Hampton Roads's currently under construction system will feature at least two portions that will have 1 HO/T lane in each direction, plus a paved shoulder that will be opened up during peak hours to provide 2. During those peak hours, there would be no shoulder. IMO, they should merely just make it a full-time 2 lanes each way to at least allow passing slower vehicles. Implement technology along the corridor that can close the shoulder lane if needed for an emergency, but otherwise let it operate full time.

I believe VDOT's wariness of that sort of thing comes in part from their experience with I-95 between Springfield and Woodbridge. At one point in the late 1980s or early 1990s, the right shoulder was designated as a lane to be used in rush hours only. Problem was, some people ignored that restriction, and it resulted in multiple crashes, including an ugly fatal crash when a tractor-trailer being driven in that lane illegally when it wasn't opened to traffic slammed into a disabled Mustang. That experience is one reason why I-66 had the colored shoulder "lane" with the red X/green arrow overhead indicators. Of course some people ignored those too, but on the whole compliance was better (or should I say "less bad"?) than it was on I-95. I think at one point on I-95 they gave up and declared the shoulder to be a full-time lane. I don't like that idea a lot because cars don't always have the decency to break down near the "emergency pull-off" areas. My mom's old car broke down on westbound I-66 during the morning rush hour in 2008 or 2009, and the car she had before that also broke down on westbound I-66 when my brother was driving it (the radiator cracked suddenly)–I guess the lesson there is, Mom, stay off I-66, but in all seriousness that sort of thing makes me all the more aware of the hazard of not having a shoulder.

[Roadgeekteen]

A Virginia Turnpike could be I-81 until I-66, and then I-66 then to I-95 then I-64?
Or there could be multiple
Virginia Turnpike-Blue Ridge Turnpike I-81
Virginia Turnpike-Coastal Turnpike I-95 and then I-64

Fictional Highways

[Angelo71]

A Virginia Turnpike could be I-81 until I-66, and then I-66 then to I-95 then I-64?
Or there could be multiple
Virginia Turnpike-Blue Ridge Turnpike I-81
Virginia Turnpike-Coastal Turnpike I-95 and then I-64

Fictional Highways

How? It uses current interstates.

[Roadgeekteen]

A Virginia Turnpike could be I-81 until I-66, and then I-66 then to I-95 then I-64?
Or there could be multiple
Virginia Turnpike-Blue Ridge Turnpike I-81
Virginia Turnpike-Coastal Turnpike I-95 and then I-64

Fictional Highways

How? It uses current interstates.

But it's a fictional plan not being considered by VDOT.

[Mapmikey]

Straying into fictional territory, but I do think a zipper setup might work on a shorter section of 95...I'm thinking Woodbridge to Springfield.  South of Woodbridge (really Prince William Pkwy), there's more room in the median so better able to build two express carriageways.  Likewise, north of Springfield I don't think anything bigger than what exists would work.

Downside of having express lanes in both directions is you'd by standard need to have at least one semi-full paved shoulder on each side.  That would be tough to do through Newington.

Some regions have gotten away without providing a shoulder, and merely have a setup similar to I-495 but with the inner lane pressed up on the wall, usually due to restricted right of way constraints. Not suggesting it for this region, but it is an option.

Hampton Roads's currently under construction system will feature at least two portions that will have 1 HO/T lane in each direction, plus a paved shoulder that will be opened up during peak hours to provide 2. During those peak hours, there would be no shoulder. IMO, they should merely just make it a full-time 2 lanes each way to at least allow passing slower vehicles. Implement technology along the corridor that can close the shoulder lane if needed for an emergency, but otherwise let it operate full time.

There is at least one segment of the 95 express lanes with no full shoulder on both sides as it is now. 

[cpzilliacus]

Straying into fictional territory, but I do think a zipper setup might work on a shorter section of 95...I'm thinking Woodbridge to Springfield.  South of Woodbridge (really Prince William Pkwy), there's more room in the median so better able to build two express carriageways.  Likewise, north of Springfield I don't think anything bigger than what exists would work.

Downside of having express lanes in both directions is you'd by standard need to have at least one semi-full paved shoulder on each side.  That would be tough to do through Newington.

Some regions have gotten away without providing a shoulder, and merely have a setup similar to I-495 but with the inner lane pressed up on the wall, usually due to restricted right of way constraints. Not suggesting it for this region, but it is an option.

Hampton Roads's currently under construction system will feature at least two portions that will have 1 HO/T lane in each direction, plus a paved shoulder that will be opened up during peak hours to provide 2. During those peak hours, there would be no shoulder. IMO, they should merely just make it a full-time 2 lanes each way to at least allow passing slower vehicles. Implement technology along the corridor that can close the shoulder lane if needed for an emergency, but otherwise let it operate full time.

I believe VDOT's wariness of that sort of thing comes in part from their experience with I-95 between Springfield and Woodbridge. At one point in the late 1980s or early 1990s, the right shoulder was designated as a lane to be used in rush hours only. Problem was, some people ignored that restriction, and it resulted in multiple crashes, including an ugly fatal crash when a tractor-trailer being driven in that lane illegally when it wasn't opened to traffic slammed into a disabled Mustang. That experience is one reason why I-66 had the colored shoulder "lane" with the red X/green arrow overhead indicators. Of course some people ignored those too, but on the whole compliance was better (or should I say "less bad"?) than it was on I-95. I think at one point on I-95 they gave up and declared the shoulder to be a full-time lane. I don't like that idea a lot because cars don't always have the decency to break down near the "emergency pull-off" areas. My mom's old car broke down on westbound I-66 during the morning rush hour in 2008 or 2009, and the car she had before that also broke down on westbound I-66 when my brother was driving it (the radiator cracked suddenly)–I guess the lesson there is, Mom, stay off I-66, but in all seriousness that sort of thing makes me all the more aware of the hazard of not having a shoulder.

Also, that interim HOV-3 lane (left lane when restricted) never worked especially well (and a similar concurrent-flow HOV lanes on I-66 between U.S. 29 at Gainesville and I-495 was never especially effective either).

[bluecountry]

IMO I-95 SHOULD be a turnpike from I-295 to exit 126 when it goes to the HOT/Express.
Those funds could pay for I-95 to be 8 lanes (4-4) from I-295 to exit 126.

6 lanes is NOT sufficient there.