Northern Virginia HOT Lanes

[sprjus4]

so that is a sign of success and widespread public acceptance.

What about everybody else sitting in the GP lanes? They must be loving it! VDOT's done so much over the past 20 years to improve their GP drive from Woodbridge south - not.

HO/T lanes aren't a solution to traffic issues. It's a band-aid to allow those who don't want to sit in congestion to easily bypass it. A true fix would be to expand I-95 to 8 GP lanes, and overhaul most of the interchanges on the corridor, add auxiliary lanes, and open the shoulder up during rush hour to add more capacity. I'd like to see VDOT's extensive studies they've done of this. *crickets*

You say the lanes are successful and have widespread public acceptance, and while that may be true, there's also a significant amount of people who will never use the lanes at all costs, and who don't support them. I'd say it's an even divide. You're looking at the fact because a lot of people that agree with your viewpoint, it must be favored by everybody, and those "few" (in reality, around equally as much who support them) who don't like it are insignificant.

[sprjus4]

As said before, that could be argued to be a "band aid" as well

So we agree - the HO/T lanes are nothing but a band-aid? An 8-laning of the GP lanes would not only simply widen it to 8-lanes, it would expand and reconstruct interchanges, add auxiliary lanes between each exit, and other improvements. Maybe even go bigger and do a 3+3+3+3. Transurban would loose it though.

If we want more than a "band aid" for I-95 north of Fredericksburg, this is what is needed, something that VDOT conducted EIS/location studies on about 20 years ago, but which Maryland obstructionism rendered moot.

Western Bypass of Washington area

Just because Maryland won't let them -finish- it all the way, they could still build the segment between Fredericksburg and VA-7, or at least to I-66. It would also act as a freeway relocation for US-17 between Fredericksburg and I-66. They haven't bothered to build it in phases at least - they still could. Also, disagree with the 4 - 6 lane count being used for each segment. This highway should have a minimum of 8-lanes throughout the entire distance.

[sprjus4]

Using an estimate of $100 million per mile, the first 30 miles between I-95 and I-66 would be $3 billion to construct. That would be a start. And if it's phased out and funded over time, it may not have to be tolled.

[Beltway]

As said before, that could be argued to be a "band aid" as well

So we agree - the HO/T lanes are nothing but a band-aid? An 8-laning of the GP lanes would not only simply widen it to 8-lanes, it would expand and reconstruct interchanges, add auxiliary lanes between each exit, and other improvements. Maybe even go bigger and do a 3+3+3+3.

Adding 2 and 3 congestion-managed lanes in the direction of peak traffic is a considerable addition to capacity, much more than adding one lane to a 3 lane roadway.  Most of the interchanges are too far apart to warrant an auxiliary lane between them.

Rebuilding to 3+3+3+3 would be impossible in at least 2 places.

Just because Maryland won't let them -finish- it all the way, they could still build the segment between Fredericksburg and VA-7, or at least to I-66. It would also act as a freeway relocation for US-17 between Fredericksburg and I-66. They haven't bothered to build it in phases at least - they still could. Also, disagree with the 4 - 6 lane count being used for each segment. This highway should have a minimum of 8-lanes throughout the entire distance.

That was from the 1988 regional study.  Building in Virginia only was considered, but was deemed to be too expensive and with too much environmental impacts for the relatively low traffic volumes (local at that) it would attract.

We already have the "stealth outer beltways" that the RE/T groups like to complain about, segments of VA-234, VA-28, VA-294, VA-123 and VA-286.

[1995hoo]

Other than the personal sniping, I feel like this discussion is a stuck record that is turning into the same rant over and over again. If you go back and read the full 29-page thread, you'll see some of the issues sprjus4 raises are legitimate and were mentioned way back at the beginning. On the other hand, I do feel that some of his arguments are plainly sloganeering. I will certainly concede that part of the reason for that position is that over the past ten years I've seen HO/T lane objectors use some of his talking points repeatedly without supporting them with any sort of substance, so I know when I see some of those phrases I have a bit of a bias against them due to the screeds I've seen elsewhere.

"Tax dollars" is an unconvincing argument to me because I don't have any problem with the idea of tolling a road to pay for ongoing maintenance and road improvements, though ideally further tax dollars would not then be used for that road unless there were to be a special tax district or some such. Put differently, I had no real objection to the McDonnell Administration's proposal to toll I-95 south of Fredericksburg, regardless of whether the road had originally been built with "tax dollars."

Also, regarding "tax dollars," my opinion on the issue has evolved a bit over time. I used to have a problem with imposing a toll outside of the old HOV hours. Over the years, and informed partly by I-66 inside the Beltway, I've come to a different conclusion. We used to have the reversible lanes be HOV-restricted from 6:30 to 9:00 and from 15:30 to 18:00. I don't think most people would seriously dispute that VDOT could have, had they so chosen, extended the HOV hours to cover a longer period, or even to be a 24/7 HOV operation (Maryland has that on US-50 between the Beltway and Route 301, though it's less elaborate than I-95). I also think most people probably wouldn't seriously dispute that VDOT could have imposed an HO/T system during the old HOV hours. Once I accept those two propositions, I have little difficulty with the concept that the 24/7 HO/T operation essentially means they did both of them–extended HOV hours and simultaneously offered the option to buy your way around that. (Certainly there are some people who claim to object to any sort of HOV restriction at any time, but those people are not to be taken seriously.)

The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.

"Typical toll" is a meaningless statistic to me because I interpret "typical" as being akin to the "mean" (what in grade school most people were taught was the "average")–that is, some people will pay less (that's me, on I-95) and others will pay more, and they're citing an overall statistic for all times the lanes are open. Of course Friday afternoon rush hour–which also starts earlier than rush hour on other days–is going to see higher tolls. Overnight hours are normally going to see lower tolls. A statistic about "average" or "typical" tolls is going to include those times in the overall calculation. Is that perhaps misleading to the average motorist who doesn't think about the issue? Perhaps, but from the comments I've seen under Washington Post articles and elsewhere, the average DC-area driver may not be intelligent enough to understand the variable tolling at all.

[webny99]

The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.

Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?

Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.

[Beltway]

The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.

Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?
Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.

What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes?  (I know the answer from experience).

[sprjus4]

What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes?  (I know the answer from experience).

Quite frankly, the HO/T lanes haven't reduced a significant amount of congestion in the GP lanes. It's easy for you to say as you're flying by at 65+ mph paying $20 as everybody else is doing 15-25 mph in the GP lanes. Of course it's helped you. You're paying large amounts of money as each trip racks up, but you're getting that easy drive through Northern Virginia. Most people don't have that benefit.

webny99 is right. It's nothing more than a personal bypass and way out of congestion. It barely has helped the GP lanes, and the majority who choose not to pay the toll.

[1995hoo]

Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?

Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.

The other thing I expect should happen at some point is that slugging hours should expand. Perhaps this will gain some more urgency this fall when HO/T operations begin on I-395 and the free ride after 9:00 and 18:00 goes away, providing a real incentive to pick up slugs outside of the traditional HOV hours. So far that hasn't really happened–when I'm on the WMATA bus passing the Pork Chop in the afternoons, the few slugs who are still waiting out there around 18:15 or so look to be on the verge of giving up.

No doubt part of the problem is that drivers don't want to take the time to go over there if they don't expect there to be riders available, which in turn means riders don't want to walk over if they don't have a reasonable chance of a ride. It's sort of a vicious cycle, I guess. It's a difficulty any time someone wants to establish a slug line. There's been an effort to have one at the Springfield Metro this summer, but it hasn't really taken off. (Part of the problem is that the guy trying to organize it is insistent on promoting it on Facebook instead of listening to recommendations that he use the established slugging websites and their discussion boards.)

[webny99]

The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.

Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?
I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.

What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes?  (I know the answer from experience).

I don't see how that's relevant. I thought we were talking about completely new lanes being added, not existing lanes switching to HO/T.

[Beltway]

What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes?  (I know the answer from experience).

Quite frankly, the HO/T lanes haven't reduced a significant amount of congestion in the GP lanes.

You're wrong, as major incidents and closures of the HOT lanes have resulted in major increases in congestion.  Convert them back to HOV, with no more than 2 lanes, and close the Garrisonville extension, and then try to make that claim.

What if instead of having 5 transitioning to 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic, it was only the 3 to 4 general purpose lanes?  (I know the answer from experience).

I don't see how that's relevant. I thought we were talking about completely new lanes being added, not existing lanes switching to HO/T.

See above.

[Beltway]

The other thing I expect should happen at some point is that slugging hours should expand. Perhaps this will gain some more urgency this fall when HO/T operations begin on I-395 and the free ride after 9:00 and 18:00 goes away, providing a real incentive to pick up slugs outside of the traditional HOV hours. So far that hasn't really happened–when I'm on the WMATA bus passing the Pork Chop in the afternoons, the few slugs who are still waiting out there around 18:15 or so look to be on the verge of giving up.

People who complain about the high tolls for HOT customers always forget that they help pay for the HOV-3+ to ride toll-free.  That includes van pools which are commonly used for commuting. 

Like you say slugging is a good way to add 1 or 2 people to your car in a safe and effective manner.

[sprjus4]

You're wrong, as major incidents and closures of the HOT lanes have resulted in major increases in congestion.  Convert them back to HOV, with no more than 2 lanes, and close the Garrisonville extension, and then try to make that claim.

Changes in travel patterns due to the HO/T lanes being added, etc. generally have occurred among those users, and when you suddenly have to close them, of course it's going to cause traffic backups horribly. I've not said they haven't helped at all, but it hasn't done a significant amount - nor have I expected them to.

Also, of course there's major increases in congestion when you have to reduce your speed from 65+ mph flying past the GP lanes backup and have to join them at 15 mph as you're pushed down to one lane to merge into their traffic flow. You paid your $20 for the 65+ mph one-way trip, you don't want to sit with those people.

Convert them back to HOV, with no more than 2 lanes, and close the Garrisonville extension

If you did that, Transurban would lose it.

People who complain about the high tolls for HOT customers always forget that they help pay for the HOV-3+ to ride toll-free.

How? They rode in the HOV lanes for free without any toll paying customers in the past with no issues. And even better - outside of rush hour, everybody could use the HOV lanes to bypass congestion on the mainline, mostly due to VDOT's horrible 4th lane drop design, with no issues.

[sprjus4]

I just measured I-264 in 7 places and every place it has 12 foot lanes.

No, it does not.


Also, a snip from the FEIS of the Southeastern Parkway from 2008 -

I-264 was originally a state primary road, and the existing roadway is not consistent with interstate design standards. When it was accepted into the interstate system of highways, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) placed a condition on the acceptance that any major improvement construction activity would include improving the roadway to interstate standards. So implementing the EQSV would require applying interstate standards to the segments to be improved. As a result, the widening of the freeway from Rosemont Road to I-64 would include widening the existing 11-foot wide lanes to 12-feet in width and establishing shoulders.

The FHWA provided a waiver for this section because it's substandard and does not meet interstate standards. If you still aren't convinced, I can try to dig up other documentation from VDOT. It's always been quite obvious from my experience driving that highway frequently - the lanes have always felt somewhat narrower compared to normal 12 foot lanes that feel wider compared to I-264.

[famartin]

The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.

Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?

Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.

This.

[kevinb1994]

The idea that there is still congestion in the mainline doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother sprjus4 because nobody ever claimed there wouldn't still be congestion. There will always be congestion on I-95.

Going back to a more fundamental question for a minute, does anyone really think the primary purpose of the HO/T or HOV lanes is to reduce congestion?

Personally, I view those lanes as giving motorists an opportunity to personally avoid the congestion, either by carpooling or paying the toll. There's not going to be less congestion in the other lanes when the new lane(s) are restricted in some way. But the HO/T lanes (IMO) add more value with the restriction, because the lane is dependable if you're in a hurry, unlike if it was a general purpose lane, where the stream would be moving slowly as always, just across more lanes than before.

This.

Seconded.

[Beltway]

I just measured I-264 in 7 places and every place it has 12 foot lanes.

No, it does not.

Give it up.  The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.

You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.

Don't laugh, I have done it many times.  That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.

You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.

I asked you twice whether you were at the CTB meeting Tuesday... you have not answered so that would seem to indicate that you were there.  I think I was the only other man there without a coat and tie... maybe you noticed me.
 

[Beltway]

Now that the new 4-lane US-301 Potomac River Bridge is about to start construction, a freeway eastern bypass of Washington along VA-207 and US-301 would be a major reliever of and alternate to the I-95 corridor.

Washington Bypass Study
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Wash_Bypass.html


Maryland's proposal in 1990 was to build an eastern bypass, with alternatives ranging up to 93 miles in total length, with the various alternates costing from $1.4 to $1.7 billion (estimated total cost for engineering, right-of-way and construction in 1990 dollars).  Virginia officials agreed with Maryland's plan, but wanted their own western bypass; it would have been in a similar price range, and up to 82 miles long.

Radical environmentalist/transit groups have a conniption fit whenever the subject arises of building one or more of the outer Washington bypasses.  Their obstructionist tactics are, in my opinion, selfish and misguided.  A regional bypass is needed to handle current and future traffic volumes, and if the RE/T groups are worried about "sprawl"  following the building of these highways, then wide interchange spacing could be utilized to sharply limit future development near the interchanges.

As far as financing, there are a variety of potential sources of funding to build these highways.  One or a combination of the following could be utilized: conventional state and federal road user tax revenues, state-issued toll revenue bonds, and private capital through public-private partnerships.  Utilizing the last two sources would mean that the highway would have a toll, but I think that if tolls are needed to finance these highways, then I am all for it.

[sprjus4]

Give it up.  The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.

You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.

Don't laugh, I have done it many times.  That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.

You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.

I provided documentation from VDOT that not only indicated that, but even mentioned there was a condition with the FHWA that any major improvement project would have to widen the lanes to 12 feet.

Did you miss that part, or is VDOT just lying? Measure an individual lane on Google Maps, not the entire roadway.

And I'd rather not go out at 2am and get hit by a car. There's still traffic that uses it at night, and the gaps between them don't last that long. US-460 on the other hand is very lightly traveled at night and doesn't see nearly the volume that I-264 does.

Now that the new 4-lane US-301 Potomac River Bridge is about to start construction, a freeway eastern bypass of Washington along VA-207 and US-301 would be a major reliever of and alternate to the I-95 corridor.

Washington Bypass Study
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Wash_Bypass.html


Maryland's proposal in 1990 was to build an eastern bypass, with alternatives ranging up to 93 miles in total length, with the various alternates costing from $1.4 to $1.7 billion (estimated total cost for engineering, right-of-way and construction in 1990 dollars).  Virginia officials agreed with Maryland's plan, but wanted their own western bypass; it would have been in a similar price range, and up to 82 miles long.

Radical environmentalist/transit groups have a conniption fit whenever the subject arises of building one or more of the outer Washington bypasses.  Their obstructionist tactics are, in my opinion, selfish and misguided.  A regional bypass is needed to handle current and future traffic volumes, and if the RE/T groups are worried about "sprawl"  following the building of these highways, then wide interchange spacing could be utilized to sharply limit future development near the interchanges.

As far as financing, there are a variety of potential sources of funding to build these highways.  One or a combination of the following could be utilized: conventional state and federal road user tax revenues, state-issued toll revenue bonds, and private capital through public-private partnerships.  Utilizing the last two sources would mean that the highway would have a toll, but I think that if tolls are needed to finance these highways, then I am all for it.

The only issue that any true I-95 relief route needs to be a minimum of 8 lanes in order to adequately handle traffic volumes. The 4-lane bridge replacement works on an arterial highway corridor like US-301, but to make it an interstate-grade bypass, you'd need another 4-lane bridge built parallel to the upcoming 4-lane bridge project. I've supported an eastern bypass in the past, but one of my main concerns is once at the US-50 freeway, what is the most efficient routing for the heavy amount of traffic using the new bypass to get back to I-95? I-97 could work, but you'd need to expand that to likely 8-lanes, and it would still dump into Baltimore.

I asked you twice whether you were at the CTB meeting Tuesday... you have not answered so that would seem to indicate that you were there.  I think I was the only other man there without a coat and tie... maybe you noticed me.

I did not... I haven't been to Richmond in a while, and not to mention have never been to a CTB meeting. It's easier for you to go to these meetings as it's right there, but that's a 2 hour drive back and forth, and frankly I've not had a lot of time on my schedule to go on a trip like that.

[Beltway]

Give it up.  The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.
You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.
Don't laugh, I have done it many times.  That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.
You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.

I provided documentation from VDOT that not only indicated that, but even mentioned there was a condition with the FHWA that any major improvement project would have to widen the lanes to 12 feet.
Did you miss that part, or is VDOT just lying? Measure an individual lane on Google Maps, not the entire roadway.
And I'd rather not go out at 2am and get hit by a car. There's still traffic that uses it at night, and the gaps between them don't last that long. US-460 on the other hand is very lightly traveled at night and doesn't see nearly the volume that I-264 does.

An FEIS of the Southeastern Parkway?  Why are they opining on I-264, and what is the context of the comments?  And yes even VDOT or a consultant that prepares a document could make a mistake.

GMSV is fuzzy when you zoom in on a roadway, and yes I would measure the entire directional roadway for precision, and GMSV imagery is not precise at that level of zoom.

Go out there and measure it at 3:00 am on a Sunday morning.  You will find sufficient gaps in traffic.

VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-288 an Interstate due to 3 foot left shoulders on 10 miles of the route, saying that 4 feet was the standard, and that was the only lack.

VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-895 an Interstate due to a 62 mph design curve near the sewage plants, saying that 70 mph was the standard, and that was the only lack.  70 mph is the rural standard but I countered with the comment that that area should be considered urban due to the sewage plant and industries constraining that segment.

Trivial reasons but that is what they said.

[74/171FAN]

Please stay on-topic.  VA 288, VA 895, and the Southeastern Pkwy are not related to the HOT Lanes discussion.  -Mark

[famartin]

Give it up.  The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.
You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.
Don't laugh, I have done it many times.  That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.
You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.

I provided documentation from VDOT that not only indicated that, but even mentioned there was a condition with the FHWA that any major improvement project would have to widen the lanes to 12 feet.
Did you miss that part, or is VDOT just lying? Measure an individual lane on Google Maps, not the entire roadway.
And I'd rather not go out at 2am and get hit by a car. There's still traffic that uses it at night, and the gaps between them don't last that long. US-460 on the other hand is very lightly traveled at night and doesn't see nearly the volume that I-264 does.

An FEIS of the Southeastern Parkway?  Why are they opining on I-264, and what is the context of the comments?  And yes even VDOT or a consultant that prepares a document could make a mistake.

GMSV is fuzzy when you zoom in on a roadway, and yes I would measure the entire directional roadway for precision, and GMSV imagery is not precise at that level of zoom.

Go out there and measure it at 3:00 am on a Sunday morning.  You will find sufficient gaps in traffic.

VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-288 an Interstate due to 3 foot left shoulders on 10 miles of the route, saying that 4 feet was the standard, and that was the only lack.

VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-895 an Interstate due to a 62 mph design curve near the sewage plants, saying that 70 mph was the standard, and that was the only lack.  70 mph is the rural standard but I countered with the comment that that area should be considered urban due to the sewage plant and industries constraining that segment.

Trivial reasons but that is what they said.

I wonder if VDOT feels like they have more freedom on the non-interstate highways, with the lesser standards, and thus don't want to designate them as such?  My only thought on that...

[froggie]

The only issue that any true I-95 relief route needs to be a minimum of 8 lanes in order to adequately handle traffic volumes.

Only in those locations with heavy local traffic...basically Waldorf north.  There's not *THAT* much through traffic on 95...the corridor study done for VTRANS 2040 found that only about 10% of the I-95 corridor traffic in Northern Virginia is through traffic...without an origin or destination in the area.  Given the highest traffic volume on I-95 in NoVA is around 250K, this is even lower than the back-of-the-napkin 30K estimate I came up with.  Even if it was closer to 50K (which it probably is some weekends) and adding in local traffic, it would be manageable with 4 lanes from the Nice Bridge south...and that's assuming that ALL of the I-95 through traffic would divert over to the 301 corridor.

[sprjus4]

The only issue that any true I-95 relief route needs to be a minimum of 8 lanes in order to adequately handle traffic volumes.

Only in those locations with heavy local traffic...basically Waldorf north.  There's not *THAT* much through traffic on 95...the corridor study done for VTRANS 2040 found that only about 10% of the I-95 corridor traffic in Northern Virginia is through traffic...without an origin or destination in the area.  Given the highest traffic volume on I-95 in NoVA is around 250K, this is even lower than the back-of-the-napkin 30K estimate I came up with.  Even if it was closer to 50K (which it probably is some weekends) and adding in local traffic, it would be manageable with 4 lanes from the Nice Bridge south...and that's assuming that ALL of the I-95 through traffic would divert over to the 301 corridor.

Maybe 6 lanes... if you've ever been on US-301 / the Nice bridge corridor on a heavy travel weekend, it's pretty packed with the 4-lanes... it felt almost like I-64 in free-flowing conditions, but still packed.

I'd still build another 4 lane bridge and stripe it as 3. Plan for the future.

[sprjus4]

Give it up.  The places I measured were 36 feet for 3 lanes and 48 feet for 4 lanes.
You could go out on roads with a tape measure and measure the lane widths, if you want to continue this new hobby with lane widths.
Don't laugh, I have done it many times.  That is how I personally know the 4-lane undivided US-460 east of Petersburg has 42 feet of pavement and 10.5 foot lanes.
You could go out on I-264 at 2:00 am and measure the roadways, do it when there is no traffic coming.

I provided documentation from VDOT that not only indicated that, but even mentioned there was a condition with the FHWA that any major improvement project would have to widen the lanes to 12 feet.
Did you miss that part, or is VDOT just lying? Measure an individual lane on Google Maps, not the entire roadway.
And I'd rather not go out at 2am and get hit by a car. There's still traffic that uses it at night, and the gaps between them don't last that long. US-460 on the other hand is very lightly traveled at night and doesn't see nearly the volume that I-264 does.

An FEIS of the Southeastern Parkway?  Why are they opining on I-264, and what is the context of the comments?  And yes even VDOT or a consultant that prepares a document could make a mistake.

GMSV is fuzzy when you zoom in on a roadway, and yes I would measure the entire directional roadway for precision, and GMSV imagery is not precise at that level of zoom.

Go out there and measure it at 3:00 am on a Sunday morning.  You will find sufficient gaps in traffic.

VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-288 an Interstate due to 3 foot left shoulders on 10 miles of the route, saying that 4 feet was the standard, and that was the only lack.

VDOT refused my recommendation for making VA-895 an Interstate due to a 62 mph design curve near the sewage plants, saying that 70 mph was the standard, and that was the only lack.  70 mph is the rural standard but I countered with the comment that that area should be considered urban due to the sewage plant and industries constraining that segment.

Trivial reasons but that is what they said.

I wonder if VDOT feels like they have more freedom on the non-interstate highways, with the lesser standards, and thus don't want to designate them as such?  My only thought on that...

The 80s and 90s part don't meet interstate standards if they have 3 foot shoulders, though VA-895 was originally intended for I-895 and was built to full interstate standards, but something to do with the toll prevented that. The 62mph design speed claim on the curve is no reason it can't be an interstate highway - hearing that one was a first.