Virginia

[sprjus4]

the D.C. area has the heavy thru traffic component that H.R. is almost lacking.  A lot of those people on I-95 and I-495 are thru and occasional movements.

Source? How much traffic is really thru traffic and local traffic? I'm not denying thru traffic exists, but is it a large amount? (excluding peak weekends) I.E. Would building an outer bypass really relieve congestion on the interstates in a significant way? Again, I'm not denying it should be built, but if a significant amount of the traffic is local, they're going to keep using I-95 because an outer bypass would be too far out to be beneficial. How much traffic will use the bypass in its entirety (I.E. not local traffic on US-301 using it as a small bypass)? 15,000 - 30,000 AADT? 50,000 - 80,000 AADT?

paying higher tolls so that the HOV-3+ can ride for free.

They rode free before the HO/T concept. And outside of peak hours it was free to all.

Just because you don't have issues with it doesn't mean everybody agrees with them, and those who don't shouldn't rightfully complain and express concerns.

[Beltway]

the D.C. area has the heavy thru traffic component that H.R. is almost lacking.  A lot of those people on I-95 and I-495 are thru and occasional movements.

Source? How much traffic is really thru traffic and local traffic? I'm not denying thru traffic exists, but is it a large amount? (excluding peak weekends) 

Based on the number of out-of-state license plates, a substantial amount.

I.E. Would building an outer bypass really relieve congestion on the interstates in a significant way?

Depends on where and how many, and how "relieve" is defined.  Additional routes could provide major capacity increases and additional alternate routes.  Would not "solve" congestion but would reduce the intensity and timespan thereof.

There were the middle routes that would have crossed the Potomac near Dumfries, and there were outer routes down to Falmouth and Carmel Church.

If you want detailed traffic projection data then MSHA and VDOT would need to conduct engineering studies to define it in detail.

Besides the joint bi-state WWB Project, Maryland has done nothing to add capacity to I-95 in the trans-Washington area.  They bear a critical part of the responsibility and without their participation Virginia cannot build any logical parallel freeway to bypass/alternate to I-95 around Washington.

It is ridiculous that in 2019 there is only one freeway, I-95, south of the Capital Beltway, and that all the weight has to fall on that one highway.

Maryland needs to start pulling their weight, Virginia should not have to make I-95 into a 12- to 14-lane "super freeway" to make up for Maryland's lacks.

I will grant that Maryland isn't going to be able to suddenly build one of these routes, but they have had since the 1980s and they have done nothing and I am going to hammer them every time I see a complaint about traffic on I-95 especially in the Dumfries-Woodbridge area which all of the 4 Washington Bypass proposals in 1988 would have bypassed / alternate.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Wash_Bypass.html

paying higher tolls so that the HOV-3+ can ride for free.

They rode free before the HO/T concept.

They didn't ride at all (at least not on any managed lanes) on I-95 south of VA-234, on I-495, or was there a managed lane interchange between the Beltway and Shirley Highway.

Express lanes in some states including Maryland don't have any toll exclusion for HOV.

[AlexandriaVA]

Why should either jurisdiction - Virginia or Maryland - be on the hook for a mega-thruway or bypass of that magnitude? There's really no compelling local interest - long-haul drivers can take extended bypasses or travel at off hours (10 PM-5 AM) to avoid slowdowns if they're really that big of an issue.

[Beltway]

Why should either jurisdiction - Virginia or Maryland - be on the hook for a mega-thruway or bypass of that magnitude? There's really no compelling local interest - long-haul drivers can take extended bypasses or travel at off hours (10 PM-5 AM) to avoid slowdowns if they're really that big of an issue.

For the same reason they were "on the hook" for building I-95, I-66, I-270, I-70 and I-495, back in the 20th Century.

This time it is I-97 Extended (eastern) and/or I-470 (western).

[sprjus4]

For the same reason they were "on the hook" for building I-95, I-66, I-270, I-70 and I-495, back in the 20th Century.

And also the same reason they built a majority of the rural interstate system.

[froggie]

Source? How much traffic is really thru traffic and local traffic? I'm not denying thru traffic exists, but is it a large amount? (excluding peak weekends) I.E. Would building an outer bypass really relieve congestion on the interstates in a significant way? Again, I'm not denying it should be built, but if a significant amount of the traffic is local, they're going to keep using I-95 because an outer bypass would be too far out to be beneficial. How much traffic will use the bypass in its entirety (I.E. not local traffic on US-301 using it as a small bypass)? 15,000 - 30,000 AADT? 50,000 - 80,000 AADT?

Based on an analysis of traffic volumes, through traffic on the I-95 corridor is likely no higher than the 30-40K range.  While a bypass may take some of that off, there is enough latent demand in the D.C. area to completely refill any capacity you may open up with a bypass.

Scott cites a large number of out-of-state plates in the D.C. area.  But keep in mind that there are large numbers of military and governmental personnel in that region, so you already have a lot of out-of-state plates with an origin and/or destination in the region to begin with.  In my case, when I transferred in, I kept my Mississippi plates until they expired, as I was allowed to do as a military member on official orders.

[1995hoo]

....

Scott cites a large number of out-of-state plates in the D.C. area.  But keep in mind that there are large numbers of military and governmental personnel in that region, so you already have a lot of out-of-state plates with an origin and/or destination in the region to begin with.  In my case, when I transferred in, I kept my Mississippi plates until they expired, as I was allowed to do as a military member on official orders.

Indeed our neighbor two doors up has New York plates on his Jeep. He's assigned to the Pentagon.

[Beltway]

Based on an analysis of traffic volumes, through traffic on the I-95 corridor is likely no higher than the 30-40K range.  While a bypass may take some of that off, there is enough latent demand in the D.C. area to completely refill any capacity you may open up with a bypass.
Scott cites a large number of out-of-state plates in the D.C. area.  But keep in mind that there are large numbers of military and governmental personnel in that region, so you already have a lot of out-of-state plates with an origin and/or destination in the region to begin with.  In my case, when I transferred in, I kept my Mississippi plates until they expired, as I was allowed to do as a military member on official orders.

Like I said, if you want current detailed traffic projection data, then MSHA and VDOT would need to conduct engineering studies to define it in detail.

Through traffic on the I-95 corridor in the 30-40K range is a lot.  What about the thru traffic in the 95-495-270-70-15 corridor that a western bypass would service?  That is in addition to the I-95 thru traffic (assuming a western bypass and no eastern bypass).

What about thru traffic that an I-97 Extended would service that doesn't route back to I-95 in Maryland but takes the US-50 and US-301 corridor to I-95 in Delaware?  Plus other parts of the Eastern Shore, such as my trip between Richmond and Easton, MD.

Any of those 4 bypasses (outer western, middle western, middle eastern, outer eastern) would help things by providing additional capacity and additional route options, and an alternate in case of a disaster on I-95.

Actually back in 1988 I thought that the outer routes were "overkill" as I-95 had just been widened Ashland to Triangle and I didn't see the need at that point for a bypass south of Dumfries where the middle bypasses crossed I-95 and the Potomac.

With today's traffic volumes I would see the desirability for the outer routes (to I-95 at Falmouth and Carmel Church).

Now that Maryland has sited a new 4-lane Potomac River bridge that could accommodate the eastern route, it is time for I-97 Extended as at least the first bypass to be built.

I am well aware of the environmental issues both natural and built, but a new north-south freeway bypass/alternate route is desperately needed, like I said VA I-95 should not have to become a 12- to 14-lane super-freeway because of Maryland's recalcitrance.

[sprjus4]

That is in addition to the I-95 thru traffic (assuming a western bypass and no eastern bypass).

Using a western bypass and I-70 to Baltimore to bypass I-95 would add at least 30 miles to the existing trip, which while it'd still probably be faster, less thru traffic would use it.

The same reason you stated that the ~20 mile out of way I-35 TX-130 bypass only has 5,000 AADT on its southern end, yet I-35 still has at least 200,000 AADT thru Austin and massive traffic congestion, some of the worst in Texas. And now with the toll bypass in place, development has spurred outwards and now the bypass has bottleneck areas, and they are now having to expand it to 6-lanes.

It is only an indirect bypass of I-35.

An eastern bypass is the most practical for an I-95 Bypass.

I wouldn't suspect there's a significant amount of thru traffic using the I-270 movement, some, but not as much as those making the I-95 movement.

Any of those 4 bypasses (outer western, middle western, middle eastern, outer eastern) would help things by providing additional capacity and additional route options, and an alternate in case of a disaster on I-95.

IMO, an eastern bypass should be the highest priority out of all, though for a western bypass, perhaps the best solution would be, as opposed to constructing a ~90 mile freeway all on new location, construct a bypass of the US-17 business district off I-95, then upgrade US-17 to interstate standards for 40 miles, including the US-29 overlap, to I-66. That would feed traffic from I-66 to I-81 heading westwards. For the movement to I-70 / I-68, upgrade 20 miles of US-521 to interstate standards in Virginia, and use West Virginia's proposed limited-access US-522 relocation and close public cross roads and build a few interchanges / overpasses where needed, then link to I-70.

Only about 60 miles of construction in Virginia, and already proposed 20 miles in West Virginia. That would be a true outer western bypass, and utilize existing interstates.

Actually back in 1988 I thought that the outer routes were "overkill" as I-95 had just been widened Ashland to Triangle and I didn't see the need at that point for a bypass south of Dumfries where the middle bypasses crossed I-95 and the Potomac.

With today's traffic volumes I would see the desirability for the outer routes (to I-95 at Falmouth and Carmel Church).

Agreed, any bypass for the I-95 corridor needs to generally follow VA-207 and US-301.

Maybe even follow US-301 all the way to I-295, and follow the remainder of I-295 back to I-95 south of Petersburg. Then re-designate I-295 and the new US-301 parallel highway as I-97.

That would certainly relieve the I-95 corridor congestion that still would exist between Ruther Glen and I-295.

It's either build an additional ~16 miles of freeway or widen the remainder of I-95 to 8 lanes, which the latter may be cheaper ultimately, but the former would split local traffic to DC with thru traffic bypassing DC.

Now that Maryland has sited a new 4-lane Potomac River bridge that could accommodate the eastern route, it is time for I-97 Extended as at least the first bypass to be built.

If Maryland does indeed continue with the narrow cross-section bridge with no shoulders, it'd likely be necessary to convert that new bridge into 3 lanes one direction with shoulders, and build a new three lane bridge parallel to it.

An eastern bypass should be built with at least 3 lanes each way if it's going to be designed right and serve for many decades to come. They did that right making I-295 6-8 lanes, even in areas where it's only 30,000 AADT.

VA I-95 should not have to become a 12- to 14-lane super-freeway because of Maryland's recalcitrance.

Not 12-14 lane freeway, but even if a bypass is built, it needs a minimum of 8 general purpose lanes, 4 in each direction.

[sprjus4]

Interesting FAQ / document regarding the proposed / under construction HO/T lanes in the Hampton Roads region along I-64, which will be presented to the HRTPO on Thursday, September 19.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%2005%20Regional%20Express%20Lanes%20Network.pdf

Here's an interesting tidbit, which may be one of the reasons HO/T lanes were preferred on the High Rise Bridge over the original, and more logical IMO, general purpose lane addition proposal -

2. What does the Elizabeth River Crossing Agreement with VDOT say about HOT lanes and improvements to the High Rise Bridge and Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (HRBT)?

The agreement notes that the construction of additional general purpose lanes on I-64 between I-464 and Bowers Hill, including the High Rise Bridge, is a compensation event — indicating that the addition of only HOT lanes in this segment would not trigger a compensation event.

Interesting how in the contrary, the HRBT expansion may trigger a compensation event no matter what though.

However, with regard to the HRBT, the agreement indicates that any capacity improvement could trigger a compensation event.

Yet again another disadvantage of having P3's over a traditional system. The flawed contract VDOT entered with ERC yet again has more issues arising.

[Beltway]

That is in addition to the I-95 thru traffic (assuming a western bypass and no eastern bypass).

Using a western bypass and I-70 to Baltimore to bypass I-95 would add at least 30 miles to the existing trip, which while it'd still probably be faster, less thru traffic would use it.

Using Google maps I estimate 122 miles versus existing 103 miles, or 19 miles longer.  Many beltways add that much or more to going thru the city.

The same reason you stated that the ~20 mile out of way I-35 TX-130 bypass only has 5,000 AADT on its southern end, yet I-35 still has at least 200,000 AADT thru Austin and massive traffic congestion, some of the worst in Texas. And now with the toll bypass in place, development has spurred outwards and now the bypass has bottleneck areas, and they are now having to expand it to 6-lanes.

Given the 8.1 million population of the Baltimore-Washington area, the traffic issues of crossing the Potomac River, crossing Baltimore Harbor, and the fact that it is I-95, comparison to Austin is not relevant.

I wouldn't suspect there's a significant amount of thru traffic using the I-270 movement, some, but not as much as those making the I-95 movement.

Less but still that is a major inter-state movement between VA I-95 south of Fredericksburg, and westerly I-70, I-76, I-99.
[...]

An outer bypass along US-17 and I-81 would not capture any of the movements along Gainesville, Dulles, Leesburg, Frederick, etc.

Agreed, any bypass for the I-95 corridor needs to generally follow VA-207 and US-301.
Maybe even follow US-301 all the way to I-295, and follow the remainder of I-295 back to I-95 south of Petersburg. Then re-designate I-295 and the new US-301 parallel highway as I-97.

US-301 between I-295 and Bowling Green doesn't even warrant 4 lanes all the way, so I would say 'no' to that.

VA I-95 should not have to become a 12- to 14-lane super-freeway because of Maryland's recalcitrance.

Not 12-14 lane freeway, but even if a bypass is built, it needs a minimum of 8 general purpose lanes, 4 in each direction.

It would at least be a lot more livable today if Maryland had done the work to get the bypass complete.

[Beltway]

Interesting how in the contrary, the HRBT expansion may trigger a compensation event no matter what though.

It is already under contract and it hasn't.

However, with regard to the HRBT, the agreement indicates that any capacity improvement could trigger a compensation event.

Yet again another disadvantage of having P3's over a traditional system.

The only disadvantage I see is the once again mention of "compensation events" without any mention of a cost estimate thereof.  Whether it is a little or a lot, it is useless to mention it without a financial cost estimate.

[sprjus4]

US-301 between I-295 and Bowling Green doesn't even warrant 4 lanes all the way, so I would say 'no' to that.

In its current state no, but if a freeway link existed between I-295 and Bowling Green, then further north to Maryland, then it would attract a significant amount of traffic.

It's essentially a second option over following VA-207 back to I-95, and would allow thru traffic to completely avoid I-95 and reduce congestion on that corridor.

Given the 8.1 million population of the Baltimore-Washington area

Not as much, but the entire San Antonio-Austin region is about 5 million population.

the traffic issues of crossing the Potomac River, crossing Baltimore Harbor

The river crossings were not the key issues being discussed, but rather congestion on a surface section of I-95 in Northern Virginia. The Baltimore Harbor would not be bypassed by these proposals, you'd still have to route thru.

Very similar to I-35 in fact, major surface interstate through the metro area, all bypassed by TX-130.

and the fact that it is I-95

I-35 is a major interstate highway linking Canada to Mexico, and many major metropolitan areas on its route, including Laredo, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and Des Monies. In Texas especially, it's also a major freight route to/from Mexico. Through the Austin metro area, it carries well over 100,000 AADT, and the segment between San Antonio and Dallas-Fort Worth carries at least 50,000 AADT, if not more, and is at least 6-lanes thruout between the two metropolitan areas. The bypass allows thru traffic and truck traffic to bypass the Austin metropolitan area en route between San Antonio / Laredo / Mexico and Dallas-Fort Worth and points north.

Your comment that I-35 is not like I-95 is irrelevant and false.



My overall point is don't expect this bypass to magically take all the traffic off of I-95 and to be carrying 60,000 - 100,000 AADT that's thru traffic between at least I-95 and US-50 - it won't. I-95 will still have major congestion issues and will still need expansion to 8-lanes, yes the traffic load will be slightly less, but it will still be a burden. The bypass would likely have 20,000 - 30,000 AADT that's truly thru traffic, again, between I-95 and US-50, with higher spots in other areas, particularly north of Waldorf, again, similar to TX-130. The southern toll road section only has ~5,000 AADT, but halfway through there's a link back to I-35 south of the "urban" area of Austin, and that has 20,000 - 30,000 AADT, so that traffic load does at least bypass part of it, and again, that's assuming all that traffic originated at I-35 north of TX-130, north of Austin. But still, Austin has major congestion issues nonetheless, even with the bypass and bypass link halfway thru.

[Beltway]

US-301 between I-295 and Bowling Green doesn't even warrant 4 lanes all the way, so I would say 'no' to that.

In its current state no, but if a freeway link existed between I-295 and Bowling Green, then further north to Maryland, then it would attract a significant amount of traffic.

Too much redundancy, US-301 is too close to I-95, better to widen that segment of I-95 to 8 lanes when and if it is needed in the future.

The river crossings were not the key issues being discussed, but rather congestion on a surface section of I-95 in Northern Virginia. The Baltimore Harbor would not be bypassed by these proposals, you'd still have to route thru.

But the whole corridor would need to deal with those issues in order to bypass I-95, and the western bypass would not cross Baltimore Harbor but utilize I-70 and I-695 to get back to I-95.

Very similar to I-35 in fact, major surface interstate through the metro area, all bypassed by TX-130.

Austin doesn't have a river or harbor of any significance to cross (i.e. transportation barrier).  Metros with major rivers and harbors have much more complicated and expensive matters to deal with.

Your comment that I-35 is not like I-95 is irrelevant and false.

Care to tally the population along each, and the fact that I-95 has no other national Interstate to the east?

My overall point is don't expect this bypass to magically take all the traffic off of I-95 and to be carrying

I never said there was any "magic" just that an additional north-south trans-Washington freeway would add major capacity and alternate routings to the area, and that all the burden wouldn't have to rest on I-95 alone south of I-495.

[plain]

I actually think that widening that 2-lane section of US 301 south of Bowling Green to 4 lanes (NOT a freeway though) sometime in the future wouldn't be a bad idea. It would certainly help those who choose to use the Nice Bridge to move along better, especially when I-95 south of VA 207 is congested... and this past summer, that was the case A LOT.

It also would be nice to have an improved US 301 on Maryland's side of the bridge, but good luck with that..

[Beltway]

I actually think that widening that 2-lane section of US 301 south of Bowling Green to 4 lanes (NOT a freeway though) sometime in the future wouldn't be a bad idea. It would certainly help those who choose to use the Nice Bridge to move along better, especially when I-95 south of VA 207 is congested... and this past summer, that was the case A LOT.

The 2018 traffic volumes, the last field being the AADT.

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.87   I-295   42-640 Shady Grove Rd   23000

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.30   42-640 Shady Grove Rd   42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd   16000

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.27   42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd   42-653 Whippoorwill Rd   11000

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   2.58   42-653 Whippoorwill Rd   42-651 Georgetown Rd   8300

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   2.94   42-651 Georgetown Rd   SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd   8500

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.64   SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd   Caroline County Line   5400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   3.16   Hanover County Line   SR 30 Dawn Boulevard   5400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   4.44   SR 30 Dawn Boulevard   16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd   3900

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   7.50   16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd   16-721 Near De Jarnette   3400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   2.46   16-721 Near De Jarnette   SCL Bowling Green   6500

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.11   SCL Bowling Green   Bus US 301 Main St   6500

US 301   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.23   Bus US 301 Main St   SR 207   6500

US 301   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   1.03   SR 207   Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave   9900

US 301   A P Hill Blvd   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.98   Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave   NCL Bowling Green; 16-608 Lakewood Rd   11000

[plain]

I actually think that widening that 2-lane section of US 301 south of Bowling Green to 4 lanes (NOT a freeway though) sometime in the future wouldn't be a bad idea. It would certainly help those who choose to use the Nice Bridge to move along better, especially when I-95 south of VA 207 is congested... and this past summer, that was the case A LOT.

The 2018 traffic volumes, the last field being the AADT.

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.87   I-295   42-640 Shady Grove Rd   23000

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.30   42-640 Shady Grove Rd   42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd   16000

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.27   42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd   42-653 Whippoorwill Rd   11000

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   2.58   42-653 Whippoorwill Rd   42-651 Georgetown Rd   8300

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   2.94   42-651 Georgetown Rd   SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd   8500

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.64   SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd   Caroline County Line   5400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   3.16   Hanover County Line   SR 30 Dawn Boulevard   5400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   4.44   SR 30 Dawn Boulevard   16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd   3900

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   7.50   16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd   16-721 Near De Jarnette   3400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   2.46   16-721 Near De Jarnette   SCL Bowling Green   6500

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.11   SCL Bowling Green   Bus US 301 Main St   6500

US 301   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.23   Bus US 301 Main St   SR 207   6500

US 301   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   1.03   SR 207   Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave   9900

US 301   A P Hill Blvd   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.98   Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave   NCL Bowling Green; 16-608 Lakewood Rd   11000

I already know the volumes on that stretch are currently low, which is why I said future.

However there were certain weekends where there was congestion along the stretch (I've been monitoring conditions all summer).

This was merely something to think about as traffic continues to grow year after year on I-95.

[sprjus4]

better to widen that segment of I-95 to 8 lanes when and if it is needed in the future.

It's needed now. As is the rest of I-95 between I-295 and the Occoquan River.

The river crossings were not the key issues being discussed, but rather congestion on a surface section of I-95 in Northern Virginia. The Baltimore Harbor would not be bypassed by these proposals, you'd still have to route thru.

But the whole corridor would need to deal with those issues in order to bypass I-95, and the western bypass would not cross Baltimore Harbor but utilize I-70 and I-695 to get back to I-95.[/quote]
In reality, all its doing is shifting traffic burden from I-95 and dumping it onto I-70 on the northern end, and choking I-695 to death around Baltimore which already has congestion issues.

I already know the volumes on that stretch are currently low, which is why I said future.

However there were certain weekends where there was congestion along the stretch (I've been monitoring conditions all summer).

This was merely something to think about as traffic continues to grow year after year on I-95.

I've utilized it a few times this summer, especially south of VA-3, and it's gotten pretty full. The average traffic counts may not show need, but reality says passing lanes are needed at the minimum. This could be accomplished by widening the roadway to 3 lanes, and alternating the center lane between the two directions of travel every 2-3 miles, flipping back and forth.

[famartin]

Found these in Sterling... a rarity in VA to find black backplates on BGS's

[Beltway]

better to widen that segment of I-95 to 8 lanes when and if it is needed in the future.

It's needed now. As is the rest of I-95 between I-295 and the Occoquan River.

Between VA-54 and VA-207 could be adequate at 6 lanes.  Much of the rest of it would be adequate at 6 lanes if I-97 Extended was operational, and that gets back to Maryland's highway policies over the last 30 years.

But the whole corridor would need to deal with those issues in order to bypass I-95, and the western bypass would not cross Baltimore Harbor but utilize I-70 and I-695 to get back to I-95.

In reality, all its doing is shifting traffic burden from I-95 and dumping it onto I-70 on the northern end, and choking I-695 to death around Baltimore which already has congestion issues.

Actually I see that the I-70 traffic could distribute to I-695 south to I-95 thru the city as well.  Basically the Baltimore area would have a similar distribution system as today, so the I-470 western bypass would be a benefit to the Washington area, and a lesser benefit to the Baltimore area.

[sprjus4]

Between VA-54 and VA-207 could be adequate at 6 lanes.

Recurring congestion is quite frequent in this segment, especially during peak travel times, and traffic counts are well over 100,000. This segment warrants 8-lanes, and has for the past at least 10 years.

As for the rest of the way to DC, you're going to need 8-lanes regardless of Maryland's Bypass. 130,000-200,000 AADT, and even if you take 20,000 - 30,000 off, you're still sitting at 100,000 - 170,000+ AADT.

6-lanes is not adequate for any segment of I-95 between the Occoquan River and I-295, bypass or not.

Actually I see that the I-70 traffic could distribute to I-695 south to I-95 thru the city as well.  Basically the Baltimore area would have a similar distribution system as today, so the I-470 western bypass would be a benefit to the Washington area, and a lesser benefit to the Baltimore area.

Any bypass does not benefit the Baltimore area. Traffic still gets dumped in either from the south or west. The advantage of the eastern bypass though is that it allows traffic the option to continue up US-301 to DE-1 to I-95. While Maryland looks at building this bypass, they also should evaluate upgrading US-301 between the US-50/US-301 split and Delaware into a limited-access 70 mph freeway, mostly be closing off remaining cross roads and building rural interchanges & overpasses. This, in conjunction with the proposed third bridge, would be the best option IMO.

[Beltway]

Between VA-54 and VA-207 could be adequate at 6 lanes.

Recurring congestion is quite frequent in this segment, especially during peak travel times, and traffic counts are well over 100,000. This segment warrants 8-lanes, and has for the past at least 10 years.
As for the rest of the way to DC, you're going to need 8-lanes regardless of Maryland's Bypass. 130,000-200,000 AADT, and even if you take 20,000 - 30,000 off, you're still sitting at 100,000 - 170,000+ AADT.
6-lanes is not adequate for any segment of I-95 between the Occoquan River and I-295, bypass or not.

The point is that it would be a lot more tolerable, as in less intense and less in timespan, especially with summer weekend and holiday peaks.

That 20,000 to 30,000 is the thru traffic for I-95.  Need to include the other thru movements that I cited as well regional cross-Potomac traffic that could better use the bypass.

If the 19 miles between I-295 and VA-207 was the only section on single routing, the issues there would be more limited as well in the overall corridor perspective.

Without Maryland's bypass work, adding one lane each way to I-95 would be like trying to put out a house fire with a handheld fire extinguisher.  Need to call the professionals at the FD.

[odditude]

The 2018 traffic volumes, the last field being the AADT.

Designation	Name	Municipality	?	County	Dist?	From	To	AADT
US 301, VA 2	Chamberlayne Rd	Hanover County	042	Hanover County	1.30	42-640 Shady Grove Rd	42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd	16000
US 301, VA 2	Chamberlayne Rd	Hanover County	042	Hanover County	1.27	42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd	42-653 Whippoorwill Rd	11000
US 301, VA 2	Hanover Courthouse Rd	Hanover County	042	Hanover County	2.58	42-653 Whippoorwill Rd	42-651 Georgetown Rd	8300
US 301, VA 2	Hanover Courthouse Rd	Hanover County	042	Hanover County	2.94	42-651 Georgetown Rd	SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd	8500
US 301, VA 2	Hanover Courthouse Rd	Hanover County	042	Hanover County	1.64	SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd	Caroline County Line	5400
US 301, VA 2	Richmond Tpke	Caroline County	016	Caroline County	3.16	Hanover County Line	SR 30 Dawn Boulevard	5400
US 301, VA 2	Richmond Tpke	Caroline County	016	Caroline County	4.44	SR 30 Dawn Boulevard	16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd	3900
US 301, VA 2	Richmond Tpke	Caroline County	016	Caroline County	7.50	16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd	16-721 Near De Jarnette	3400
US 301, VA 2	Richmond Tpke	Caroline County	016	Caroline County	2.46	16-721 Near De Jarnette	SCL Bowling Green	6500
US 301, VA 2	Richmond Tpke	Town of Bowling Green	016	Caroline County	0.11	SCL Bowling Green	Bus US 301 Main St	6500
US 301	Richmond Tpke	Town of Bowling Green	016	Caroline County	0.23	Bus US 301 Main St	SR 207	6500
US 301	Richmond Tpke	Town of Bowling Green	016	Caroline County	1.03	SR 207	Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave	9900
US 301	A P Hill Blvd	Town of Bowling Green	016	Caroline County	0.98	Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave	NCL Bowling Green; 16-608 Lakewood Rd	11000

reformatted so i could read it.

[1995hoo]

https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1174384474274054147?s=21

https://mobile.twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1174384474274054147

[Beltway]

reformatted so i could read it.

Ahh I was wondering how to code a table here ... thanks! 

I saved the source code.

The 042 and 016 are the internal county codes that VDOT utilizes.  The 'Dist.' is the segment length.

Is there an easy way to produce such a table or do you have to code it line by line?