Virginia

[plain]

A 3-lane tube is wasteful unless you are certain that the complex will never need widening to 4 lanes each way.

See my proposal above. You could build one 3-lane tube, and for the time have 2+1 each way. In the future, demolish the 50s tunnel and replace it with another 3-lane tube, then have 3+1 each way.

That 50s tunnel is substandard and aging. It's going to eventually need to be replaced, and that 3-lane tube would have eventually accommodated that in the future with another 3-lane tube in its place.

While I would love to see the 1957 tunnel and its lower clearance eliminated as well as at least 3 GP lanes each way, there's something else to think about here.

In this scenario the HOT lanes would be in the center (2-lane) tunnel carrying 2-way traffic. Depending on how much traffic would be using this, there could be a speed limit drop (to probably 45 MPH) which I think would be frowned upon by those willing to pay a toll for express lane use.

[sprjus4]

While I would love to see the 1957 tunnel and its lower clearance eliminated as well as at least 3 GP lanes each way, there's something else to think about here.

In this scenario the HOT lanes would be in the center (2-lane) tunnel carrying 2-way traffic. Depending on how much traffic would be using this, there could be a speed limit drop (to probably 45 MPH) which I think would be frowned upon by those willing to pay a toll for express lane use.

Each lane is 12 feet wide. If you reduce it to 11 feet, you could have a small barrier or tubes dividing traffic. As seen in Northern Virginia, you can reduce lane sizes to 11 feet if it prohibits trucks on HO/T lanes according to posters on here.

Remember, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel has two-way traffic in its tubes and has a 55 mph speed limit, along with no barrier.

[plain]

While I would love to see the 1957 tunnel and its lower clearance eliminated as well as at least 3 GP lanes each way, there's something else to think about here.

In this scenario the HOT lanes would be in the center (2-lane) tunnel carrying 2-way traffic. Depending on how much traffic would be using this, there could be a speed limit drop (to probably 45 MPH) which I think would be frowned upon by those willing to pay a toll for express lane use.

Each lane is 12 feet wide. If you reduce it to 11 feet, you could have a small barrier or tubes dividing traffic. As seen in Northern Virginia, you can reduce lane sizes to 11 feet if it prohibits trucks on HO/T lanes according to posters on here.

Remember, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel has two-way traffic in its tubes and has a 55 mph speed limit, along with no barrier.

The CBBT can handle that because it doesn't carry a lot of traffic, even on its busiest days.

A center 2-way tube on the HRBT may have issues during peak periods if enough people choose to use it. It doesn't even have to be a backup here.. just enough people filling the tube to the point highway speeds could become a safety issue.

[Beltway]

Remember, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel has two-way traffic in its tubes and has a 55 mph speed limit, along with no barrier.

The CBBT can handle that because it doesn't carry a lot of traffic, even on its busiest days.
A center 2-way tube on the HRBT may have issues during peak periods if enough people choose to use it. It doesn't even have to be a backup here.. just enough people filling the tube to the point highway speeds could become a safety issue.

I would agree.  The idea of running 2-lane 2-way traffic on a tube in the HRBT complex would be a non-starter. 

Not to mention the costs to build two 3-lane tubes which would be fantastically expensive.

[sprjus4]

I would agree.  The idea of running 2-lane 2-way traffic on a tube in the HRBT complex would be a non-starter.

11 foot lanes and divide it with a 2 foot barrier.

If you can shrink the lanes to 11 foot on those HO/T lanes you love in Northern Virginia, you could easily do it here too. I'm pretty sure the original HRBT only has 11 foot lanes as well, and 12 foot lanes on the '76 tunnel.

[Beltway]

I would agree.  The idea of running 2-lane 2-way traffic on a tube in the HRBT complex would be a non-starter.

11 foot lanes and divide it with a 2 foot barrier.
If you can shrink the lanes to 11 foot on those HO/T lanes you love in Northern Virginia, you could easily do it here too. I'm pretty sure the original HRBT only has 11 foot lanes as well, and 12 foot lanes on the '76 tunnel.

The Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel has two 12-foot-wide lanes each way, on separately built structures; the original, now westbound, opened on November 1, 1957; and the eastbound structure opened on June 3, 1976.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I64_VA_HRBT.html

A one-way roadway is rather different from a two-way roadway, especially in the confined space of a tunnel.

[1995hoo]

https://twitter.com/vadot/status/1146780914900439040?s=21

[sprjus4]

The Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel has two 12-foot-wide lanes each way

http://hrbtexpansion.org/documents/2018-august-design-public-hearing-materials/project-limits-typical-section-hrbt-expansion-project-2018-public-hearing-display.pdf

According to VDOT, it's 11.5 ft lanes in both tunnels actually.

[Beltway]

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/public-feedback-invited-on-interstate-95-corridor-improvement-study7-10-2019.asp
PUBLIC FEEDBACK INVITED ON INTERSTATE 95 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY
Excerpt:

The Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, under the leadership of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), are developing a plan to study Virginia's 179 miles of the Interstate 95 corridor between the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Alexandria, Virginia and the North Carolina border.  The public is invited to attend a series of in-person meetings between summer and fall 2019.  An online engagement tool will be available for those interested to learn more details and provide input throughout the study's duration.

As requested in similar resolutions from both chambers of the legislature (Senate Joint Resolution 276 and House Joint Resolution 581) during the 2019 General Assembly, the CTB has initiated a data-driven study to develop the I-95 Corridor Plan which will identify key problem areas along the corridor, and identify potential solutions and areas for additional review and study.

For more information about the study, or to view meeting materials and access the online engagement tool, visit VA95Corridor.org.

[sprjus4]

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/public-feedback-invited-on-interstate-95-corridor-improvement-study7-10-2019.asp
PUBLIC FEEDBACK INVITED ON INTERSTATE 95 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY
Excerpt:

The Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, under the leadership of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), are developing a plan to study Virginia's 179 miles of the Interstate 95 corridor between the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Alexandria, Virginia and the North Carolina border.  The public is invited to attend a series of in-person meetings between summer and fall 2019.  An online engagement tool will be available for those interested to learn more details and provide input throughout the study's duration.

As requested in similar resolutions from both chambers of the legislature (Senate Joint Resolution 276 and House Joint Resolution 581) during the 2019 General Assembly, the CTB has initiated a data-driven study to develop the I-95 Corridor Plan which will identify key problem areas along the corridor, and identify potential solutions and areas for additional review and study.

For more information about the study, or to view meeting materials and access the online engagement tool, visit VA95Corridor.org.

This is a start, but a more detailed analysis at the section between Woodbridge and I-295 is needed, or at least Fredericksburg to Woodbridge.

Hopefully GP widening of some sorts is included in this study - it has to be a given judging by the traffic counts and only 6 lanes.

But knowing VDOT, I wouldn't be shocked if it's just more "interchange improvements". Can't interfere with Transurban's tolling operations. They already rejected a previous widening request over this.

[Beltway]

This is a start, but a more detailed analysis at the section between Woodbridge and I-295 is needed, or at least Fredericksburg to Woodbridge.
Hopefully GP widening of some sorts is included in this study - it has to be a given judging by the traffic counts and only 6 lanes.
But knowing VDOT, I wouldn't be shocked if it's just more "interchange improvements". Can't interfere with Transurban's tolling operations. They already rejected a previous widening request over this.

Really?  Where was that?  What did they do?

[sprjus4]

Really?  Where was that?  What did they do?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/potomaclocal-images/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VDOT-I-95-PWC-Widening-Project.pdf

As a result of this review, it has been determined that Application ID 1533, Widen I-95 from Occoquan River Bridge to Rte 234 (Exit 152), is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate could not be fully evaluated given that the proposed addition of capacity to Interstate 95 would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes, for which adequate information is not currently available.

[Beltway]

Really?  Where was that?  What did they do?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/potomaclocal-images/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VDOT-I-95-PWC-Widening-Project.pdf

As a result of this review, it has been determined that Application ID 1533, Widen I-95 from Occoquan River Bridge to Rte 234 (Exit 152), is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate could not be fully evaluated given that the proposed addition of capacity to Interstate 95 would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes, for which adequate information is not currently available.

That basically says nothing.  What would this compensation event be, a few thousand dollars?  A few million?  Basically they gave no cogent reason for claiming that such an event would prevent the project from moving forward.

It was mentioned elsewhere that adding a lane each way for 8 miles would cost about $400 million.  That cost for that level of improvement would be the real reason.

[sprjus4]

That cost for that level of improvement would be the real reason.

The modern day cost per mile of interstate highway widening?

I guess if that's too expensive for VDOT, I-95 is never getting 8-lanes.

$50 million per mile is to be expected.

[Beltway]

That cost for that level of improvement would be the real reason.

The modern day cost per mile of interstate highway widening?
I guess if that's too expensive for VDOT, I-95 is never getting 8-lanes.
$50 million per mile is to be expected on modern-day widening.

That competing with everything else on the corridor. 

And it is not going to "open the pearly gates".

[sprjus4]

That competing with everything else on the corridor.

What, Transurban's privately funded HO/T lane extensions?

[Beltway]

That competing with everything else on the corridor.

What, Transurban's privately funded HO/T lane extensions?

Past, present, future.  C-D roadways.  The current study's upcoming results on the whole corridor.

[sprjus4]

The current study's upcoming results on the whole corridor.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they blow off widening once again and not even consider it.

Rebuilding a whole bunch of interchanges is nice. But it doesn't help traffic flow better on the mainline.

8-lanes would. And no I know 8-lanes won't make the whole corridor free-flowing at 5pm on a Friday afternoon. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It will help traffic flow certainly more than it is now.

Maybe they could even do 8-lanes, then open the shoulder to have 10 GP lanes during peak hours.

Toll lanes are going to have the least impact of traffic flow in the GP lanes. You've advocated for constructing the 4th lane each way as a toll lane. That would have little to no benefit considering the existing toll lanes that can adequately handle the traffic that is willing to pay.

[Beltway]

The current study's upcoming results on the whole corridor.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they blow off widening once again and not even consider it.
Rebuilding a whole bunch of interchanges is nice. But it doesn't help traffic flow better on the mainline.
8-lanes would.  And no I know 8-lanes won't make the whole corridor free-flowing at 5pm on a Friday afternoon. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It will help traffic flow certainly more than it is now.

I would expect the study be like those performed on I-81 and I-64, a corridor EIS/location study that looks at all the needs and makes recommendations accordingly.

That would include funding mechanisms, such as federal and state funds, taxation districts, toll revenue bonds, P3 equity, etc. and combinations thereof.

I have already suggested a 4th GP lane that has variable tolls, if that is what it takes to fund it between I-295 and VA-123.  The reversible roadway only handles one direction at a time and has never been proposed south of Massaponax.

But I am tired of hearing about this putative "compensation event" when it is apparent that no one has tallied the cost of it; it could be small or large; we don't know.

Interstate widening project needs are enormous in many states; it is not just one route, but in the case of Virginia the 325 miles of I-81, about 30 more miles of I-64, and some extremely expensive harbor crossings.  Now the I-95 corridor as well.

[sprjus4]

I would expect the study be like those performed on I-81 and I-64, a corridor EIS/location study that looks at all the needs and makes recommendations accordingly.

If the I-81 study is indication, then we can expect interchange and other spot improvements being recommended, and MAYBE an auxiliary lane or two.

The I-64 EIS was done right. It didn't BS with interchange and other spot improvements and auxiliary lanes, it got right to the point - the whole highway needs to be 6-lanes in the rural areas, 8-lanes in the urban areas.

That would include funding mechanisms, such as federal and state funds, taxation districts, toll revenue bonds, P3 equity, etc. and combinations thereof.

I have already suggested a 4th GP lane that has variable tolls

... which would be absolutely pointless given there's already toll lanes within the corridor.
And tax dollars better not fund that new lane if VDOT was dumb enough to build it to begin with.

Interstate widening project needs are enormous in many states; it is not just one route, but in the case of Virginia the 325 miles of I-81, about 30 more miles of I-64, <snip> and now the I-95 corridor as well.

51 miles of widening on I-81 is already funded, so you can cut that down to 274 miles.

I-64 Segment 4 widening is unfunded, though would likely be funded via HRTAC - considering that factor, that would reduce the gap for regular VDOT funding to 20 miles.

30 miles on I-64, 274 miles on I-81, and 70 miles on I-95 - 374 miles of widening needed throughout the state ultimately - likely around $18.7 billion using a $50 million per mile figure.

If you also consider the fact that the I-81 corridor is now in its own tax district and will likely pay the price of the future 274 miles of widening in that corridor over the next 10-20 years, that would significantly reduce the amount of regular VDOT funding needed for that - similar to how HRTAC is funding its own projects without regular VDOT funding.

That would leave only around 100 miles of interstate mileage that would need to fully compete for state funding via SmartScale and other sources, so again using that $50 million per mile figure, around $5 billion.

With the HRTAC, I-81 Tax District, the statewide tax increase coming in 2020, and existing state/federal funding in place, if VDOT plays its cards right, they could get most or all of these projects underway or even completed by 2050 IMO.

and some extremely expensive harbor crossings.

The HRBT expansion, and the future third crossing and MMMBT expansions are funded by HRTAC which collects revenue through the 2013 gas-tax increase in Hampton Roads.

VDOT only pitched in $200 million towards the $3.8 billion HRBT expansion, so trying to indicate that the entire $3.8 billion project competes with other projects statewide is moot.

[Beltway]

I have already suggested a 4th GP lane that has variable tolls

... which would be absolutely pointless given there's already toll lanes within the corridor.
And tax dollars better not fund that new lane if VDOT was dumb enough to build it to begin with.

This is the same non-answer that you have posted before.

You also gutted the context:
"I have already suggested a 4th GP lane that has variable tolls, if that is what it takes to fund it between I-295 and VA-123.  The reversible roadway only handles one direction at a time and has never been proposed south of Massaponax."

Also, the reversible roadway will probably not be extended south of the US-17 Falmouth interchange.  So that is about 38% of the segment I stated, and only handles one direction at a time.

The fact that "there's already toll lanes within the corridor" is irrelevant to the bulk of the mileage that does not have toll lanes available to the motorist, 100% in one direction and about 62% in the other direction.

You said that all the various Interstate widening projects might take until 2050 to complete; I don't know about that, but I addressed the specific needs on I-95 between I-295 and VA-123, and suggested a way to fund it sooner rather than later.

A 4th toll lane each way absolutely would be well utilized if it existed.

So the state conducts a study to find an effective mix of federal and state funds, taxation districts, toll revenue bonds, P3 equity, etc. and combinations thereof, to fund this project with appropriate tolls.

[Jmiles32]

I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive. I encourage anyone else interested in this to either attend one of the other meetings or email the study manager. If anyone has any specific questions they would like me to ask ( assuming I go) let me know.

Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments? It was my understanding that only the section through Harrisonburg (both directions), northbound between Blacksburg and I-581, and maybe between Exit 7 and 10 near Bristol are getting an actual 3rd lane. The rest of the funded "widenings" I thought were for auxiliary lanes.

[sprjus4]

Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments?

MM 8.1 to MM 9.7 - 1.6 miles
MM 116.2 to MM 141.8 - 25.6 miles
MM 144.2 to MM 151.3 - 7.1 miles
MM 221.8 to MM 225.3 - 3.5 miles
MM 242.2 to MM 248.1 - 5.9 miles
MM 295.7 to MM 299.2 - 3.5 miles
MM 313.8 to MM 317.5 - 3.7 miles

So in total, 50.9 miles.

[Jmiles32]

Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments?

MM 8.1 to MM 9.7 - 1.6 miles
MM 116.2 to MM 141.8 - 25.6 miles
MM 144.2 to MM 151.3 - 7.1 miles
MM 221.8 to MM 225.3 - 3.5 miles
MM 242.2 to MM 248.1 - 5.9 miles
MM 295.7 to MM 299.2 - 3.5 miles
MM 313.8 to MM 317.5 - 3.7 miles

So in total, 50.9 miles.

Both directions?

[NE2]

All three directions.