Northern Virginia HOT Lanes

[cpzilliacus]

I didn't notice anything in particular. The radio (which is what the Chipmunks-type noise was) said something about an incident out there, but I didn't see anything. On a rainy day you never know.

I was in DC earlier today and on my way home I noted that there are signs in place (partially covered) for the new 95 Express Lanes in the area just north of the Duke Street interchange. Interestingly, one of the new signs is a Clearview copy of the old sign for the Turkeycock ramp, complete with the I-95/I-495 shields, with the only differences (other than Clearview) being (a) the "EXPRESS LANES ONLY" auxiliary plaque is no longer being used and (b) there is now a poorly-covered black-on-yellow "LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL" banner at the bottom. I found point (b) interesting because technically it's not entirely accurate given the "HOV-or-toll" nature of what they're building there. I'm not sure there's a clearer way to phrase it, though.

This interface between the HOV lanes (only) [between Turkeycock Run in the south and the Pentagon/S. Eads Street interchange in the north] and the HOV/Toll lanes [between Garrisonville, Stafford County in the south and Turkeycock Run in the north is going to be a clunky affair, at least for starters]. 

It is (in my personal opinion) unfortunate that VDOT and the Governor and General Assembly did not push back much harder against the objections raised against the project, which were, in my opinion, frivolous. Naming individual VDOT and USDOT employees as defendants in that lawsuit was entirely unjustified.  The last time there was a highway dispute between the Commonwealth and Arlington County (over I-66 between the Capital Beltway and Rosslyn), the Commonwealth got most of what it wanted, though I-66 was scaled-back from the 8-lane freeway that the Virginia Department of Highways (VDH, predecessor agency to VDOT) had long planned for. An acceptable compromise might have been that the private concession owner would not be permitted to widen the reversible roadway from 2 lanes to 3 lanes between Turkeycock Run and the Pentagon.

[mtantillo]

Technically, everyone on the lanes is tolled, since everyone is supposed to have a toll transponder and the toll gantries look for toll devices on every vehicle.  Just that if you are HOV and you have an E-ZPass Flex, your toll amount is always $0.00. It shows up on your E-ZPass statement as such.

From a signing perspective, the main point they are driving home is that it is the last exit before the tolling system/tolling rules/E-ZPass requirement. If you do not have an E-ZPass or do not wish to drive under the gantry, this is your last chance to exit. And, "oh by the way", if you are HOV and have a Flex, you'll pay a toll of zero. But you still have to pay the zero toll by having a Flex device or else you are a violator.

[1995hoo]

You know, that explanation makes a lot of sense from a logical standpoint for those of us who take the time to think about these things. Having seen the level of ignorance displayed by the general public about the operations of the I-495 HO/T lanes, though, I wonder how many average motorists would follow that.

They have posted the same white signs explaining the rules that we see on the Beltway, of course. Hopefully people would realize it would work the same way! But I have no doubt that plenty of people will be confused. The president of our HOA was shocked to learn that soon she'll have to pay a toll to use a portion of the reversible carriageway on her commute home when this was discussed at a recent meeting, and I generally find her to be a fairly well-informed person.

[cpzilliacus]

Technically, everyone on the lanes is tolled, since everyone is supposed to have a toll transponder and the toll gantries look for toll devices on every vehicle.  Just that if you are HOV and you have an E-ZPass Flex, your toll amount is always $0.00. It shows up on your E-ZPass statement as such.

Yes, that seems to be how Transurban does it for the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes (based on a few trips I have taken in HOV-3 mode on the 495 HOV/toll lanes).

From a signing perspective, the main point they are driving home is that it is the last exit before the tolling system/tolling rules/E-ZPass requirement. If you do not have an E-ZPass or do not wish to drive under the gantry, this is your last chance to exit. And, "oh by the way", if you are HOV and have a Flex, you'll pay a toll of zero. But you still have to pay the zero toll by having a Flex device or else you are a violator.

All correct.  I understand that some drivers have a hard time grasping that they need to have the Flex transponder to get the HOV-3 toll rate of zero.

[1995hoo]

....

From a signing perspective, the main point they are driving home is that it is the last exit before the tolling system/tolling rules/E-ZPass requirement. If you do not have an E-ZPass or do not wish to drive under the gantry, this is your last chance to exit. And, "oh by the way", if you are HOV and have a Flex, you'll pay a toll of zero. But you still have to pay the zero toll by having a Flex device or else you are a violator.

All correct.  I understand that some drivers have a hard time grasping that they need to have the Flex transponder to get the HOV-3 toll rate of zero.

I find it amusing how many of the people in the slugging community have screamed bloody murder at the idea that they should have to get an E-ZPass Flex, as they say they were told HOVs would always ride free and so they say (a) there should be no need for a transponder and (b) the E-ZPass Flex isn't free. As to the first issue, it was always made clear a switchable transponder was needed; as to the second, if you get an E-ZPass Flex and use it solely for HOV-mode travel on the HO/T lanes, the fee is waived (and, frankly, I think if someone doesn't already have an E-ZPass and uses the I-95 HOV to commute, it's not at all implausible to think he'd use the transponder solely on that facility when the HO/T system opens). Either way, though, I roll my eyes because I'd love to see those slug drivers get busted for not using an E-ZPass and then try to contest the ticket in court on the basis that "I don't think I should have to get an E-ZPass."

[cpzilliacus]

I find it amusing how many of the people in the slugging community have screamed bloody murder at the idea that they should have to get an E-ZPass Flex, as they say they were told HOVs would always ride free and so they say (a) there should be no need for a transponder and (b) the E-ZPass Flex isn't free. As to the first issue, it was always made clear a switchable transponder was needed; as to the second, if you get an E-ZPass Flex and use it solely for HOV-mode travel on the HO/T lanes, the fee is waived (and, frankly, I think if someone doesn't already have an E-ZPass and uses the I-95 HOV to commute, it's not at all implausible to think he'd use the transponder solely on that facility when the HO/T system opens). Either way, though, I roll my eyes because I'd love to see those slug drivers get busted for not using an E-ZPass and then try to contest the ticket in court on the basis that "I don't think I should have to get an E-ZPass."

From a public policy perspective, slugging is great.  One of the great failings of transportation planning in our region (in retrospect) was to not several other corridors for slugging.

It makes efficient and effective use of scarce peak-period highway capacity, costs the slugs and body snatchers little, and saves everyone a lot of time - without expensive things like transit union labor and transit buses.

But having said that, I think these folks protest rather too loudly.

The cost of an E-ZPass Flex unit is pretty minimal, and the population served by the I-95/I-395 HOV lanes is not an impoverished one.  If they did not like the conversion of the lanes from "regular" HOV lanes to HOV/Toll lanes, then they should have complained to their elected representatives in Richmond (especially) and in Washington, and they might have considered who they should (and should not) vote for on Election Day.

I don't think anyone would get very far with the "I don't need a transponder" defense. 

[vdeane]

What about out of town drivers who otherwise fulfill the HOV requirement?  Why should they be barred from the lanes or forced to pay a toll?  It's not fair to impose extra requirements on non-locals.  HOV, in the past, has always been about number of occupants alone.

[cpzilliacus]

What about out of town drivers who otherwise fulfill the HOV requirement?  Why should they be barred from the lanes or forced to pay a toll?  It's not fair to impose extra requirements on non-locals.  HOV, in the past, has always been about number of occupants alone.

That's a fair question.

I suppose the promoters of this project would respond by saying that anyone can get an E-ZPass Flex transponder, not just residents of Virginia.  Though the only other toll agency that currently issues them (as far as I am aware) is the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA).

[1995hoo]

What about out of town drivers who otherwise fulfill the HOV requirement?  Why should they be barred from the lanes or forced to pay a toll?  It's not fair to impose extra requirements on non-locals.  HOV, in the past, has always been about number of occupants alone.

I think Virginia's system is actually a pretty reasonable and flexible one compared to some other HO/T systems. Miami's I-95 HO/T lanes, for example, give the HOV exemption only to "registered carpools." I learned from "mtantillo" of this forum that they will not allow you to register if you have an out-of-state plate, even with a valid SunPass and even if you live in the Miami area for a good chunk of the year (such as the people Floridians call "snowbirds," i.e., northerners who come south for the winter).

Virginia's "extra requirement" (to use your phrase) doesn't apply solely to non-local drivers, BTW. It applies to everyone, local drivers included. It's not simply a case of "local drivers will get the HOV transponder," either. The E-ZPass Flex has a higher monthly fee (at least from Virginia–I don't know if Maryland's policy is the same) than the standard E-ZPass at $1.00 for the Flex versus 50¢ for the standard device, although as I noted previously there is a way to get your Flex device with no monthly fee if you use it solely for carpooling (again, that's Virginia's policy and I don't believe Maryland offers the same). But then you have those of us who currently have fee-free E-ZPasses because we had them before VDOT instituted the monthly fee–they grandfathered us in until our transponders need to be replaced or until we replace a transponder with a Flex (also, any additional transponders we request are subject to whichever fee applies to the particular device we request). Thus, to use my wife and me as an example, we have two E-ZPasses with no monthly fee. If we replace one with an E-ZPass Flex, it would cost us $1.00 a month because we're never going to use it solely for carpooling. If we get a third E-ZPass for our third car, it would cost us 50¢ a month (we will never get a third E-ZPass for that car, no reason to do so). When either of our current transponders reaches the end of its battery life, the replacement device will cost 50¢ a month unless by then there's a sticker-type device available.

So we don't have an E-ZPass Flex. Not worth it to us because we've never used the HO/T lanes with three or more people, and if we did do so it would be so rare an occasion that we wouldn't get bent out of shape about the toll. But if I were a driver who picked up slugs, I would absolutely get an E-ZPass Flex when the I-95 HO/T lane system will open. It wouldn't be fee-free for me because I'd use it on other roads. I don't think it's worth swapping transponders just to save $1 a month, as the toll savings on the HO/T lanes would far outweigh the fee. But since I don't pick up slugs and since we don't have kids who ride with us in the HOV and HO/T lanes, it's not worth it.

[vdeane]

I can't see it ever being economical for someone from a different state to get a MD/VA tag just for flex, especially someone who has a fee-free (by statute) E-ZPass.  That Miami system is just asking to be challenged in court.  IMO, it should be illegal (and probably is - I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't allow states to treat residents and non-residents differently).

[Mapmikey]

States do this all the time...college tuition being a glaring and expensive example.  Some states (maybe all?) do this with fishing licenses too.

[cpzilliacus]

That Miami system is just asking to be challenged in court.  IMO, it should be illegal (and probably is - I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't allow states to treat residents and non-residents differently).

Virginia has been getting away with that for many years. 

So-called clean fuel tags (various kinds of which have allowed the owner an exemption to Virginia's many HOV lanes) have never been available to owners of Toyota Priuses, Honda Insights or other hybrid vehicles. 

I assert that there are more than a few things Constitutionally wrong with that, but as far as I know, it has never been challenged in court.  I don't think it would survive a court challenge, even though Virginia has a legal presumption that everything passed by its General Assembly is Constitutional.

[vdeane]

States do this all the time...college tuition being a glaring and expensive example.  Some states (maybe all?) do this with fishing licenses too.

With college tuition, at least in that case in-state people are subsidizing it with tax money (that's why the difference exists).  Fishing licences are just money grabs anyways, so it's probably similar.

[Mapmikey]

Virginia has been getting away with that for many years. 

So-called clean fuel tags (various kinds of which have allowed the owner an exemption to Virginia's many HOV lanes) have never been available to owners of Toyota Priuses, Honda Insights or other hybrid vehicles. 

Not sure where you got that information.  Those models are all over the qualified vehicle list going back to 2003.
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/cleanspecialfuel.html#qualify

Mapmikey

[oscar]

Virginia has been getting away with that for many years. 

So-called clean fuel tags (various kinds of which have allowed the owner an exemption to Virginia's many HOV lanes) have never been available to owners of Toyota Priuses, Honda Insights or other hybrid vehicles. 

Not sure where you got that information.  Those models are all over the qualified vehicle list going back to 2003.
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/cleanspecialfuel.html#qualify

At one point, Priuses were eligible for clean fuel plates entitled to the HOV examption, and there are still some out there.  But that went away before I got mine.  A co-worker got an exemption-eligible plate for her Prius (which helped, since she lived near the I-95 HOV lanes).  By the time I got my Prius in 2008, exemption-eligible plates were not being issued, and if I got a clean-fuel plate it would have been a non-exempt variety, so I didn't bother.

[cpzilliacus]

Virginia has been getting away with that for many years. 

So-called clean fuel tags (various kinds of which have allowed the owner an exemption to Virginia's many HOV lanes) have never been available to owners of Toyota Priuses, Honda Insights or other hybrid vehicles. 

Not sure where you got that information.  Those models are all over the qualified vehicle list going back to 2003.
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/cleanspecialfuel.html#qualify

I am familiar with the list. 

But that list does nothing for you if you do not reside in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

That is my point.

Perhaps the only good thing about Transurban taking over the HOV lanes along I-95 and the southern end of I-395 is the end of free rides for the many Virginia-registered hybrid vehicles out there.

[cpzilliacus]

At one point, Priuses were eligible for clean fuel plates entitled to the HOV examption, and there are still some out there.  But that went away before I got mine.  A co-worker got an exemption-eligible plate for her Prius (which helped, since she lived near the I-95 HOV lanes).  By the time I got my Prius in 2008, exemption-eligible plates were not being issued, and if I got a clean-fuel plate it would have been a non-exempt variety, so I didn't bother.

The original series of Virginia CF tags allowed access to all HOV-restricted lanes in Virginia. 

Then a new series was released, which removed the HOV exemption for I-95 and I-395, effectively capping the number of HOV-exempt vehicles eligible for that corridor.

After that came another series, which removed the HOV exemption for I-66, leaving unrestricted access only to the HOV lanes along Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) only.   

Adam might know what the story is regarding HOV exemptions on I-64, I-264 and I-564 in Hampton Roads.

[1995hoo]

.... 

Adam might know what the story is regarding HOV exemptions on I-64, I-264 and I-564 in Hampton Roads.

I've also wondered about the HOV-2 lanes on Route 1 and Washington Street through Old Town Alexandria. I assume the clean fuel plates provide an exemption but have never heard confirmation yea or nay, and frankly I've never been all that motivated to investigate because it doesn't affect us due to none of our cars being eligible either way (heck, our RX-7 is about as fuel-inefficient as most mass-market cars get). On the other hand, I could also see a ticket being given because those streets were never mentioned on VDOT's website where it lists HOV information.

[TheOneKEA]

Is there any information on why the I-495 HOT lanes were not extended as far north as VA 193? I am aware of the NIMBYism and BANANAism that would prevent the logical extension of the HOT lanes across the Legion Bridge, but it seems strange that the HOT lanes don't at least have passive provision to allow them to be extended easily.

[Alps]

States do this all the time...college tuition being a glaring and expensive example.  Some states (maybe all?) do this with fishing licenses too.

With college tuition, at least in that case in-state people are subsidizing it with tax money (that's why the difference exists).  Fishing licences are just money grabs anyways, so it's probably similar.

Also, interstate commerce is a golden calf among reasons to disallow differences between states.

[cpzilliacus]

Is there any information on why the I-495 HOT lanes were not extended as far north as VA 193? I am aware of the NIMBYism and BANANAism that would prevent the logical extension of the HOT lanes across the Legion Bridge, but it seems strange that the HOT lanes don't at least have passive provision to allow them to be extended easily.

This would be the place to ask.

[cpzilliacus]

Also, interstate commerce is a golden calf among reasons to disallow differences between states.

More than just Interstate commerce in the context of the so-called "hybrid" exemption from HOV rules in Virginia.  With the possible exception of the arterial HOV lanes on U.S. 1 in the City of Alexandria, all of the Virginia HOV lanes represent substantial investment by federal taxpayers.

[froggie]

Virginia's HOV exemptions and whatnot (including the "clean fuel plates") are on this VDOT page.  In short (regarding CP's comment), hybrids with "clean fuel plates" are allowed on the Hampton Roads HOV lanes regardless of when their plates were issued.

With the possible exception of the arterial HOV lanes on U.S. 1 in the City of Alexandria, all of the Virginia HOV lanes represent substantial investment by federal taxpayers.

According to FHWA, the I-264 HOV lanes in Virginia Beach were opened in 1992, which would peg them as pre-264 (I-264 was added there in 1999) and pre-toll-removal (tolls were removed in 1995).  So in short, the I-264 HOV lanes east of I-64 were paid from tolls and not from Federal taxpayers.  The same is likely the case with the Dulles Toll Road HOV lanes.

[cpzilliacus]

Virginia's HOV exemptions and whatnot (including the "clean fuel plates") are on this VDOT page.  In short (regarding CP's comment), hybrids with "clean fuel plates" are allowed on the Hampton Roads HOV lanes regardless of when their plates were issued.

Thank you.

With the possible exception of the arterial HOV lanes on U.S. 1 in the City of Alexandria, all of the Virginia HOV lanes represent substantial investment by federal taxpayers.

According to FHWA, the I-264 HOV lanes in Virginia Beach were opened in 1992, which would peg them as pre-264 (I-264 was added there in 1999) and pre-toll-removal (tolls were removed in 1995).  So in short, the I-264 HOV lanes east of I-64 were paid from tolls and not from Federal taxpayers.

That sounds right.  I remember when the HOV lanes were opened on (what was then) Va. 44.   

The same is likely the case with the Dulles Toll Road HOV lanes.

The pavement in the lanes themselves (and shoulders, guardrails and signs), yes.  The land under the Dulles Toll Road, absolutely not - it was purchased by the Federal Aviation Administration when Dulles Airport was built in the late 1950's and early 1960's.

[froggie]

Said land would have already been amortized out by the time DTR was constructed, let alone when HOV lanes were added to the DTR.  Since the land had already long been purchased and done by the time the DTR HOV lanes came about, it's a hard sell to claim that Federal funding was used in their construction.