Virginia

[sprjus4]

Because the left shoulder is needed on a 3+ lane roadway.

How about along I-495 where there is no left general purpose shoulder due to HO/T lanes? In a lot of metros that use HO/T lanes, this is the same situation, and the HO/T lane also doesn't have a shoulder. It's not uncommon.

In any event, a 10-foot shoulder with 30% to 50% of the pavement thickness (I would have to research the original plans to know the exact figure) needs extensive upgrading to provide a 12-foot traffic lane.

Might as well just build a 4th general purpose lane each way... but that $12.5 billion cost 

The $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program will have a huge impact during peak hours, so it is not something to dismiss; and if they are willing to spend that kind of money, then by 2025 (the implied "interim" date) they could plan some major highway improvements.

According to the report...

The proposed multimodal improvements in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg Districts cost considerably less ($375 million) than building an additional lane of capacity ($12.5 billion), representing a significant cost savings in terms of potential performance benefits. As part of the previously-mentioned hypothetical analysis of adding a lane in each direction on I-95 between Exits 118 and 170, the proposed multimodal improvements were evaluated. The multimodal improvements are projected to increase the number of persons moved in the corridor by non-SOV modes. As a direct result of the projects, increases are projected in the number of people carpooling (including slugging), vanpooling, taking commuter rail, and taking commuter bus during the morning peak period (Figure 18) in the five northernmost portions of the corridor. Other increases in other modes may be possible but were not forecasted as part of this effort. The commuter rail total does not include any additional assumed improvements to the VRE Manassas Line. At the Occoquan River, a major bottleneck along the corridor, the study team projects an increase of approximately 7,700 multimodal persons moved during the morning peak period. Other increases throughout the corridor vary depending on location.

They are continuing to dismiss any potential widening projects as apart of this study. I find it more ironic below under Table 7 - "Type of Improvement" - that describes potential improvements....

Widening by One Lane: an extra lane constructed for multiple miles to increase the capacity of the interstate

* Where there are high person hours of delay and incidents/ crashes with a lane closure
* Where there are high traffic volumes
* Where there are long distances that vehicles need to pass, merge, or travel through multiple interchanges

and that all of these apply to I-95 between Woodbridge and I-295, however according to Table 8 - "Proposed Mainline Roadway Improvements by Type by District" - 0 widening by one lane projects are included in the Northern Virginia district, and only 2 widening by one lane projects are included in the Fredericksburg district - from Exit 126 to Exit 130, one NB, one SB.

[Beltway]

In any event, a 10-foot shoulder with 30% to 50% of the pavement thickness (I would have to research the original plans to know the exact figure) needs extensive upgrading to provide a 12-foot traffic lane.

Might as well just build a 4th general purpose lane each way... but that $12.5 billion cost 

Sickening (vomit makes a sickening sound when it hits the floor).

The quote you posted from the report cites that figure in an engineering report.  The politicians (governor and his CTB appointees) obviously injected that figure into the report, and given the criticality of that data point, almost makes me want to dismiss the entire report as too tainted by the politicians.

[sprjus4]

Sickening (vomit makes a sickening sound when it hits the floor).

The quote you posted from the report cites that figure in an engineering report.  The politicians (governor and his CTB appointees) obviously injected that figure into the report, and given the criticality of that data point, almost makes me want to dismiss the entire report as too tainted by the politicians.

The figure was merely inserted to dismiss any talk of GP widening, and to put the focus on multimodal improvements. This is clearly evident in this excerpt below. I'd be curious to see a detailed engineering report that details each cost aspect of that given figure. They have yet to make any of this publicly available. An environmental impact statement needs to be completed along the entire corridor from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and I-295 specifically evaluating general purpose improvements, along evaluating the potential for an eastern or western parallel corridor providing a supplemental route to I-95.

The proposed multimodal improvements in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg Districts cost considerably less ($375 million) than building an additional lane of capacity ($12.5 billion), representing a significant cost savings in terms of potential performance benefits.

I don't see any real efforts on general purpose widening of the I-95 corridor between Woodbridge and I-295 or any bypass of the Washington / Baltimore metro parallleling the US-17 / US-15 or US-301 corridors being pursued before 2040.

[Jmiles32]

It occurs to me that allowing HOT lanes to be expanded to both ways could be a bargaining chip to allow a 4th general lane in each direction...

How so?


What I don't understand is why there are no plans (or least discussions) to widen I-95 between Fredricksburg and Richmond where no HOT lanes currently exist and therefore a compensation event wouldn't be an issue. This stretch of I-95 is prone to random back-ups and delays all the time and with the "rural" area between Fredricksburg and Richmond likely to eventually fill in, traffic volumes on this stretch (today over 100,000 AADT) will only increase.

[sprjus4]

How so?

What I don't understand is why there are no plans (or least discussions) to widen I-95 between Fredricksburg and Richmond where no HOT lanes currently exist and therefore a compensation event wouldn't be an issue. This stretch of I-95 is prone to random back-ups and delays all the time and with the "rural" area between Fredricksburg and Richmond likely to eventually fill in, traffic volumes on this stretch (today over 100 AADT) will only increase.

I-95 has gotten to the point where the entire corridor from I-295 to Washington has become unreliable during significant portions of the year, and it is a joke that Virginia has yet to complete a detailed environmental impact statement evaluating options for the entire corridor to construct at least one additional general purpose lane that is continuous throughout the entire length, along with reviving the long proposed eastern or western bypasses and launching them into detailed study and collaborating with Maryland to get something done. They think transit improvements will fix many of the issues, and that it would cost so much more, as per a figure generated without any engineering assessment, to complete the proper improvements that would directly relieve congestion. Their logic is flawed, and congestion on I-95 will only continue to get worse and it will get to a point where I-95 will be unreliable almost any time, even more than it is now.

At least they're getting it right with I-64 and are actively pursuing the completion of a continuous 6-lane interstate corridor between Hampton Roads and Richmond. I could only imagine them trying to claiming it would cost $12.5 billion to widen the remaining 30 miles to 6-lanes, and it would be cheaper to complete a high-speed passenger rail instead along US-460.

[Jmiles32]

How so?

What I don't understand is why there are no plans (or least discussions) to widen I-95 between Fredricksburg and Richmond where no HOT lanes currently exist and therefore a compensation event wouldn't be an issue. This stretch of I-95 is prone to random back-ups and delays all the time and with the "rural" area between Fredricksburg and Richmond likely to eventually fill in, traffic volumes on this stretch (today over 100 AADT) will only increase.

I-95 has gotten to the point where the entire corridor from I-295 to Washington has become unreliable during significant portions of the year, and it is a joke that Virginia has yet to complete a detailed environmental impact statement evaluating options for the entire corridor to construct at least one additional general purpose lane that is continuous throughout the entire length, along with reviving the long proposed eastern or western bypasses and launching them into detailed study and collaborating with Maryland to get something done. They think transit improvements will fix many of the issues, and that it would cost so much more, as per a figure generated without any engineering assessment, to complete the proper improvements that would directly relieve congestion. Their logic is flawed, and congestion on I-95 will only continue to get worse and it will get to a point where I-95 will be unreliable almost any time, even more than it is now.

At least they're getting it right with I-64 and are actively pursuing the completion of a continuous 6-lane interstate corridor between Hampton Roads and Richmond. I could only imagine them trying to claiming it would cost $12.5 billion to widen the remaining 30 miles to 6-lanes, and it would be cheaper to complete a high-speed passenger rail instead along US-460.

VA seems to be pushing what some might call "21st-century" traffic solutions. While I can understand the reasoning behind this in some instances (funding restraints, urban roadways with no room to expand, environmental concerns, etc.) there is no legit reason why widening here should be completely off the table. I suspect a vast majority of I-95 traffic between Fredricksburg and Richmond is thru traffic in which rail, transit, and biking solutions are not viable alternatives.

[Beltway]

The figure [$12.5 billion] was merely inserted to dismiss any talk of GP widening, and to put the focus on multimodal improvements. This is clearly evident in this excerpt below. I'd be curious to see a detailed engineering report that details each cost aspect of that given figure. They have yet to make any of this publicly available. An environmental impact statement needs to be completed along the entire corridor from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and I-295 specifically evaluating general purpose improvements, along evaluating the potential for an eastern or western parallel corridor providing a supplemental route to I-95.

As I have been saying!  Conduct a full EIS/location study, evaluate a range of alternatives, produce cost estimates and environmental impact details, produce cost estimates for any compensation event, produce a DEIS, an FEIS and a ROD.

I have no problem with focusing on multimodal improvements, as they would have the biggest impacts during peak commuting hours.

But the EIS needs to be conducted and started immediately, for I-95 improvements between I-295 and Woodbridge.

I don't see any real efforts on general purpose widening of the I-95 corridor between Woodbridge and I-295 or any bypass of the Washington / Baltimore metro parallleling the US-17 / US-15 or US-301 corridors being pursued before 2040.

Nothing about 2040 is mentioned anywhere.  A major priority change with new multi-billion funding could happen in 5 years, especially after the $3.7 billion has been fully spent on the railroad improvements.

I-95 has gotten to the point where the entire corridor from I-295 to Washington has become unreliable during significant portions of the year, and it is a joke that Virginia has yet to complete a detailed environmental impact statement evaluating options for the entire corridor to construct at least one additional general purpose lane that is continuous throughout the entire length,

Not "Virginia," per se; it is the fault of the current and previous governor and all current CTB members which are their appointees, and their lack of action since 2013.

along with reviving the long proposed eastern or western bypasses and launching them into detailed study and collaborating with Maryland to get something done.

Nope, not until and unless Maryland and their associated counties show clear and credible evidence that they will participate.
 

[Mapmikey]

It occurs to me that allowing HOT lanes to be expanded to both ways could be a bargaining chip to allow a 4th general lane in each direction...

How so?

In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.

Given that VDOT says even with the 4th lane added congestion would return to today's levels fairly quickly, this would suggest that HOT lane usage would not see a huge decrease if 95 was widened and the HOT lanes were expanded.

Maybe I am underthinking it...

Was the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?

[Beltway]

In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.
Given that VDOT says even with the 4th lane added congestion would return to today's levels fairly quickly, this would suggest that HOT lane usage would not see a huge decrease if 95 was widened and the HOT lanes were expanded.
Maybe I am underthinking it...

Over, under, whatever, I can't really say ... all this speculation because ... there is one way to analyze all of this and come up with solutions ...

They need to conduct a full EIS/location study, evaluate a range of alternatives, produce cost estimates and environmental impact details, produce cost estimates for any compensation event, produce a DEIS, an FEIS and a ROD.  Between I-295 and I-495 even if there is no widening north of Woodbridge.

Was the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?

I-395 doesn't have 4 thru GP lanes until north of Glebe Road and it was built that way in the 1970s.

[sprjus4]

In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.

If Transurban becomes the entity that would construct such new HO/T lanes, then this needs to be included in any contract if it's to be properly done.

But knowing Virginia, they'll just give it to Transurban and include no negotiation with compensation events. It's not like they have any plans to expand the general purpose lanes.

[sprjus4]

Governor Northam and Legislative Leaders Highlight Plan to Improve Driver Safety, Modernize Transportation System

RICHMOND – Governor Ralph Northam and legislative leaders today announced support for a comprehensive transportation package that will improve driver and pedestrian safety and modernize funding for transit, rail, and roads.

House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn and Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw joined the Governor for the announcement, along with House Transportation Committee Chair Delores McQuinn and Senate Transportation Committee Chair David Marsden. The measures are outlined in House Bill 1414 (Filler-Corn) and Senate Bill 890 (Saslaw).

"Virginians should be able to get to work or to school safely, without sitting in traffic,"  said Governor Northam. "This bold package will reduce congestion, transform transit and rail service, and support economic growth across Virginia. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the General Assembly to pass it into law."

This landmark transportation package will make roads safer by establishing a Virginia Highway Safety Improvement Program and implementing a number of proven safety policies. These measures include prohibiting the use of handheld cell phones while driving, banning open containers of alcohol in vehicles, making failure to wear a seatbelt a primary offense, enhancing speed enforcement, and allowing localities to lower speed limits. Combined, they are expected to save more than 120 lives a year.

"In November, Virginians overwhelmingly demanded we take swift, decisive action that improves their lives,"  said Speaker of the House of Delegates Eileen Filler-Corn. "I am excited to work with the Governor and my colleagues in the General Assembly to pass this legislation that will make our roads safer, commutes shorter, and transform passenger and commuter rail in the Commonwealth."

Despite Virginians driving more than ever, revenues from motor fuel taxes have continued to drop. This legislation modernizes Virginia's transportation funding model by cutting vehicle registration fees in half, raising the gas tax, and indexing it to inflation. New revenues will build a sustainable transportation system over the next decade and will be distributed through a new streamlined funding mechanism that supports a multimodal network.

"We know we can't pave our way out of congestion,"  said Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw. "This bill will ensure we are using taxpayer money efficiently, will save Virginians' time, and will enhance infrastructure options for moving people and goods throughout the Commonwealth. This measure is long overdue and a much needed path forward to addressing Virginia's transportation challenges."

This proposal also includes measures to dramatically transform Virginia's transit and rail systems. It establishes the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority to promote and expand passenger and commuter rail service across the Commonwealth. In coordination with the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, the legislation authorizes the use of bonds to assist with the construction of a new rail Long Bridge across the Potomac River, increasing capacity for passenger, commuter and freight trains, and reducing congestion. The package also establishes a Transit Incentive Program, which will promote improved transit service, support regional routes, and reduce barriers to transit use by low-income individuals.

"This legislation is the foundation for a true multimodal transportation system,"  said Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine. "By building a sustainable funding bridge to the future, Virginia is making a bold investment in safe, reliable travel options that create mobility for all Virginians."

The legislation also includes funding to support:

• Smart Scale, the data-driven model for new capacity transportation projects;
• Interstates, secondary and city streets to meet safety and performance targets;
• Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, to help restore funding for regional priorities;
• I-81 Debt Authorization to accelerate $2 billion program of projects; and
• Matching Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) funds for WMATA
• Critical or Special bridges and tunnels

Overreach.

[Beltway]

The legislation also includes funding to support:

• Smart Scale, the data-driven model for new capacity transportation projects;
• Interstates, secondary and city streets to meet safety and performance targets;
• Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, to help restore funding for regional priorities;
• I-81 Debt Authorization to accelerate $2 billion program of projects; and
• Matching Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) funds for WMATA
• Critical or Special bridges and tunnels

Overreach.

That, and blather, and nothing really new.  Plus the old strawman that is trotted out to dismiss any major upgrades --
"We know we can't pave our way out of congestion,"  said Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw

We know we can't mass transit our way out of congestion.

[sprjus4]

The legislation also includes funding to support:

• Smart Scale, the data-driven model for new capacity transportation projects;
• Interstates, secondary and city streets to meet safety and performance targets;
• Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, to help restore funding for regional priorities;
• I-81 Debt Authorization to accelerate $2 billion program of projects; and
• Matching Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) funds for WMATA
• Critical or Special bridges and tunnels

Overreach.

That, and blather, and nothing really new.  Plus the old strawman that is trotted out to dismiss any major upgrades --
"We know we can't pave our way out of congestion,"  said Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw

This one was even better

"Virginians should be able to get to work or to school safely, without sitting in traffic,"  said Governor Northam. "This bold package will reduce congestion, transform transit and rail service, and support economic growth across Virginia. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the General Assembly to pass it into law."

Yet they refuse to expand any part of I-95.

[Beltway]

In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.

If Transurban becomes the entity that would construct such new HO/T lanes, then this needs to be included in any contract if it's to be properly done.
But knowing Virginia, they'll just give it to Transurban and include no negotiation with compensation events. It's not like they have any plans to expand the general purpose lanes.

Let me correctly reword that last sentence --

But knowing Governor Northam and his CTB members, they'll just give it to Transurban and include no negotiation with compensation events.  It's not like they have any plans to expand the general purpose lanes, or perform the EIS/location study for I-95 upgrades between I-295 and Woodbridge.

[Mapmikey]

In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.

If Transurban becomes the entity that would construct such new HO/T lanes, then this needs to be included in any contract if it's to be properly done.

But knowing Virginia, they'll just give it to Transurban and include no negotiation with compensation events. It's not like they have any plans to expand the general purpose lanes.

Presumably Transurban would have to build the 4th lane as part of the expansion of HOT lanes.  This would make sense to do since in many places the extra room to add more HOT lanes would have to come from moving the main lanes further out.  Similar to how they built the 495 HOT lanes but add an extra lane while they are expanding.

Was the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?

I-395 doesn't have 4 thru GP lanes until north of Glebe Road and it was built that way in the 1970s.

I was referring to the project to add a 4th lane between Edsall Rd and Duke St which is under construction.  This would likely be a compensation event if this were being done on I-95 between say Dale City and Woodbridge.

[Beltway]

Was the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?

I-395 doesn't have 4 thru GP lanes until north of Glebe Road and it was built that way in the 1970s.

I was referring to the project to add a 4th lane between Edsall Rd and Duke St which is under construction.

That is 1.1 mile and between adjacent interchanges, so that is an auxiliary lane and not a thru lane.

This would likely be a compensation event if this were being done on I-95 between say Dale City and Woodbridge.

4.1 miles which would be a bona fide general purpose lane.

We have no idea what is 'likely' when the current state executive branch won't conduct the EIS/location study needed to formally evaluate whether there would be compensation among all the yada yada yada ...

[sprjus4]

Was the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?

I-395 doesn't have 4 thru GP lanes until north of Glebe Road and it was built that way in the 1970s.

I was referring to the project to add a 4th lane between Edsall Rd and Duke St which is under construction.

That is 1.1 mile and between adjacent interchanges, so that is an auxiliary lane and not a thru lane.

This would likely be a compensation event if this were being done on I-95 between say Dale City and Woodbridge.

4.1 miles which would be a bona fide general purpose lane.

We have no idea what is 'likely' when the current state executive branch won't conduct the EIS/location study needed to formally evaluate whether there would be compensation.

But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million 

[Beltway]

We have no idea what is 'likely' when the current state executive branch won't conduct the EIS/location study needed to formally evaluate whether there would be compensation.

But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million 

The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.

[sprjus4]

We have no idea what is 'likely' when the current state executive branch won't conduct the EIS/location study needed to formally evaluate whether there would be compensation.

But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million 

The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.

Approved with little to no second thought by the administration, but lane widening - nope!

[Beltway]

But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million 

The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.

Approved with little to no second thought by the administration, but lane widening - nope!

The did a EIS/location study for the railroad upgrades... nothing even started on I-95.

[sprjus4]

But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million 

The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.

Approved with little to no second thought by the administration, but lane widening - nope!

The did a EIS/location study for the railroad upgrades... nothing even started on I-95.

And that EIS/location study was approved with little to no second thought, but isn't even an option for I-95 widening.

[Beltway]

But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it’s only $400 million 

The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.

Approved with little to no second thought by the administration, but lane widening - nope!

The did a EIS/location study for the railroad upgrades... nothing even started on I-95.

And that EIS/location study was approved with little to no second thought, but isn't even an option for I-95 widening.

Well, no, it took at least 4 years to conduct that study (I would have to research the exact figure), but they need to start a study first of all.

[D-Dey65]

Do you have any document?

Virginia got federal approval in the late 1970s to build a new Interstate corridor to parallel the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (RPT). The RPT was designated with I-95 for most of its length, and with I-85 on the southern 4 miles. The RPT was a state-built tollroad, opened in 1958; no federal funds were used. The new Interstate would provide a new I-85 and new I-95, south and east of Petersburg. The RPT would have had the Interstate signing removed, and become a state route. Two sections of federally-funded Interstate leading to the RPT would have been bypassed also; about 3 miles of I-85 west of Petersburg would have become I-385, and about 4 miles of I-95 south of Petersburg would have become I-795. I-295 northeast of Richmond would have become I-95, and I-95 from I-295 (north junction) to I-195 would have become I-195. In other words, what today is the I-295 bypass of I-95, would have been I-95.

The new I-85 section south of Petersburg was never built. The new I-95 east of Petersburg and Richmond was built from 1984 to 1992. The state and federal project numbers on the design documents were for I-95. As sections opened to traffic, southward from US-60 east of Richmond, they extended the I-295 corridor southward and carried the I-295 signage. When the road was completed, it all carried the I-295 signage. The decision was made to leave the I-95 and I-85 signage on the RPT, and to sign the new road as I-295. Incidentally, when the new road opened, the tolls ceased on the RPT, and the toll booths were removed within six months.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html

You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was I-95.

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417

Unless this was a misprint.

[Mapmikey]

You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417

Unless this was a misprint.

I believe this is an error (additionally the VA 142 label above the I-95 shield is on a part of the road that has never been VA 142) on the 1959 Topo.

however...there is an April 1960 CTB (see pdf pg. 42) item that reads in part:   ...certain modifications in the location of US Route 1 where the entrance and exit ramps of the Turnpike, Interstate 95, intersect US Route 1 in Dinwiddie County...

I think that is also in error because the contract to build I-95 from SCL Petersburg to SR 626 (this is located south of present I-295) is shown on pdf pg. 11 of July 1958 CTB

The 1959 Official shows I-95 on the turnpike in the Richmond inset but does not show any shields on the turnpike in the Petersburg inset.  The next issue (1961) explicitly shows the short segment of I-85 as I-85.

Because of when the Turnpike opened relative to any free segment of either interstate it is certainly possible 95 shields existed at the US 1 interchange.

[Beltway]

You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.

It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.