AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: Virginia  (Read 1668457 times)

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4575 on: October 10, 2019, 11:34:07 PM »

Quote
One traffic model studied the long-term impacts of adding lanes to a 52-mile stretch of I—95 from North Stafford to Northern Virginia. Adding one lane would cost $12.5 billion, but showed little improvement.
I call bull-ohney.  It is 17 miles between north Stafford County and Woodbridge, and no additional lane is needed north of Woodbridge.

Someone needs to have their reportage/journalistic skills upgraded.  Or else they have been fed a line of baloney by the RE/T groups.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:09:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4576 on: October 11, 2019, 05:58:38 AM »

Finally got an update on the ongoing I-95 Corridor Improvement Study/Plan
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/vdot-unveils-potential-fixes-for-congestion-on-i/article_69e6b88f-ca85-5054-961c-9f4a0a6fe255.html
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/corridor/i-95_operational_and_freeway_improvement_strategies.pdf
Quote
Potential solutions to improve travel time and safety on Interstate 95 were unveiled this week during a public meeting at James Monroe High School and the best options may surprise some commuters.

The plan favors a variety of approaches, such as increased transit or ride-sharing opportunities and interchange improvements, over simply building more lanes on I—95, Virginia Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary Nick Donohue told a crowd of about 30 Wednesday evening.

The study tackles problems on the 179 miles of I—95 in the state, primarily congestion and crashes. The study’s first phase pinpointed problem areas, while the current second phase is focused on potential solutions.

Donohue gave a presentation Wednesday covering I—95 traffic data and modeling gathered as part of the study, and highlighted a couple of surprises.

One traffic model studied the long-term impacts of adding lanes to a 52-mile stretch of I—95 from North Stafford to Northern Virginia. Adding one lane would cost $12.5 billion, but showed little improvement. Adding two or three lanes showed improvements, but not enough to justify the costs.

Quote
The study also will focus on potentially improving interchanges and road infrastructure in areas around those exits. Such improvements could help when I—95 closes down and detoured traffic floods roads around interchanges.

Donohue highlighted one potential project the study could promote that would add a lane to increase southbound I—95 capacity beyond the crossing projects in an effort to help avoid choke point problems.

Another potential project–hardening I—95 shoulders to allow peak-period usage for traffic–caught the attention of some residents at the meeting. It wasn’t the traffic impact of the plan that drew responses, but the limitations tied to the electronically tolled express lanes.

The state’s I—95 express lanes contract with Transurban precludes the state from making improvements that would impact the toll lanes without compensating the express lanes operator.

The study’s plan would use the shoulders in the opposite direction of peak express lanes usage as a way to avoid the payments.

A couple of key things here. The first is the shocking cost of $12.5 BILLION for adding one lane from North Stafford (Not even Fredricksburg) to NOVA (I assume at least to the Springfield interchange). That's got to be directly affected by the compensation event so I guess VDOT went ahead and finally figured out what it would be, or at least what Transurban would want. Secondly, I am not surprised that hardened sholders seem to be preferred alternative as that both avoids a compensation event and seems to at least somewhat satisfy the public. Interested to see what specific interchange improvements VDOT puts on the table as at least in IMO besides the Occoquan bottleneck (still more related to the lane drop than the actual interchange), its the PW Parkway one (Exit 158) causing the most delays. Finally, I am glad additional lanes are being considered at the southern end of the Rappahannock River Crossing Project as I got to speak with Deputy Secretary Donohue about my chokepoint concerns there at one of the initial study meetings.
$12.5 billion... what is this adjusted for inflation in 2100?

The currently under construction Rappahannock River Bridge project in Fredericksburg is constructing a new 6-lane roadway in the median plus two bridges over the Rappahannock River for $264 million, or $48 million per mile. Understandable, and quite reasonable cost.

A locality request for ~$410 million for 9 miles of 8-lane widening south of Woodbridge would have also produced a $45 million per mile figure.

Now you're telling me I'm supposed to believe that 52 miles of widening, I.E. adding a single lane each way in the median, as opposed to an entire roadway like the Fredericksburg project is doing,(which this Stafford to North Virginia claim seems off) is going to cost $12.5 billion, or $240.8 per mile?

I'm not buying this for one second, unless of course it's Transurban's pockets taking 50% of that cost for "compensation events". And if it's true that VDOT is claimining "widening is the not the best option", then this state can pound sand. The whole I-95 corridor between Richmond and DC, especially Fredericksburg northwards, is one of the heaviest congested on the east coast, let alone the country, and if the state is going to go RE/T style on this one and not get anything needed done, then I've lost a lot of respect for VDOT, and something tells me the HO/T lane and private company Transurban is having a lot of influence with these decisions.

VDOT - We Keep Virginia Moving.

B.S.

Maybe while we're at it, let's not add any lanes to I-81 or I-64, and just do interchange improvements and ITS improvements? Ooh, or a convenient system of a statewide HO/T lane network? Transurban can operate it too!

At least the majority of the state hasn't been knocked senseless.

I shouldn't be surprised though. I knew as soon as this Corridor Improvement Plan was launched that widening would not be considered. The only thing that does surprise me though is the fact they even evaluated it. This state never fails to disappoint.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 06:12:16 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4577 on: October 11, 2019, 10:34:05 AM »

And if it's true that VDOT is claimining "widening is the not the best option", then this state can pound sand.
I already called garbage on the Fredericksburg Far Left Star article. 
I will want to see official engineering study results before I decide on what is happening with I-95.

Also attend the Richmond meeting --

Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Richmond
Richmond Marriott —
Short Pump
4240 Dominion Blvd.
Glen Allen, VA 23060
4-7 p.m.
This meeting is combined with regularly-scheduled Fall Transportation Meetings
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/public-feedback-invited-on-interstate-95-corridor-improvement-study9-27-2019.asp
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:09:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4578 on: October 11, 2019, 10:52:33 AM »

And if it's true that VDOT is claimining "widening is the not the best option", then this state can pound sand.
I already called garbage on the Fredericksburg Far Left Star article. 
I will want to see official engineering study results before I decide on what is happening with I-95.

Also attend the Richmond meeting --

Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Richmond
Richmond Marriott —
Short Pump
4240 Dominion Blvd.
Glen Allen, VA 23060
4-7 p.m.
This meeting is combined with regularly-scheduled Fall Transportation Meetings
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/public-feedback-invited-on-interstate-95-corridor-improvement-study9-27-2019.asp
My thing is knowing VDOT, it’s likely what they’re recommending - no lane widening.

I really want to know where that price estimate comes from. That is absurdly high compared to the Rappahannock River crossing project and previously proposed widening.

$12.5 billion to add a lane each way is blown way out of proportion.

And they’re looking at the wrong area - 52 miles needs to be from Woodbridge to at minimum Ruther Glen, and then some more down to Richmond.

A lot of that, as you’ve mentioned before, has been built as a stealth lane already, reducing costs significantly.

Either way, there’s no way I-95 should stay at 6 general purpose lanes with the traffic load it has, especially with no bypass either. It needs to be expanded to 8-lanes like the segment north of Woodbridge was, along with the median express lanes, and maybe even that bi-directional HO/T shoulder proposed, along with that 4th GP lane each way.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4579 on: October 11, 2019, 11:18:02 AM »

My thing is knowing VDOT, it’s likely what they’re recommending - no lane widening.

That would completely go against their history, as documented on the Interstate widening table that I produced.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

plain

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2833
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Richmond Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 03:34:00 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4580 on: October 11, 2019, 12:05:27 PM »

$12 BILLION???? Bwahahahaaaa that's 3 HRBT's!!



SM-S820L

Logged
Newark born, Richmond bred

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3639
  • Age: 58
  • Last Login: Today at 07:09:32 AM
    • I-95; Still not finished in Boston, Central New Jersey, or Washington, D.C.
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4581 on: October 11, 2019, 02:29:52 PM »

And if it's true that VDOT is claimining "widening is the not the best option", then this state can pound sand.
So VDOT is now going the way of NYSDOT? God help us all! And they wonder why people are taking detours onto US 301.


VDOT - We Keep Virginia Moving.

B.S.
I think the same way when I see those signs on NYSDOT maintenance yards claiming they're the best in the world.


Maybe while we're at it, let's not add any lanes to I-81 or I-64, and just do interchange improvements and ITS improvements? Ooh, or a convenient system of a statewide HO/T lane network? Transurban can operate it too!
You know somebody gave me some advice about a sarcastic remark I made about Mario Cuomo's polices on screwing up their road network.

I shouldn't be surprised though. I knew as soon as this Corridor Improvement Plan was launched that widening would not be considered. The only thing that does surprise me though is the fact they even evaluated it. This state never fails to disappoint.
I should've known when they had that online survey a while back and left out anything associated with road improvements.


Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:09:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4582 on: October 11, 2019, 04:36:48 PM »

My thing is knowing VDOT, it’s likely what they’re recommending - no lane widening.

That would completely go against their history, as documented on the Interstate widening table that I produced.
Here's the difference - the entire corridor proposed for widening has HO/T lanes. VDOT has never widened general purpose when HO/T lanes are present. In Hampton Roads for example, all of the proposed lane additions are HO/T, no general purpose. Up in Northern Virginia using that same context, they've expanded the HO/T lanes to 3 lanes, but not any addition to the general purpose.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:09:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4583 on: October 11, 2019, 04:55:24 PM »

I should've known when they had that online survey a while back and left out anything associated with road improvements.
I'm 99% certain RE/T groups produced those surveys. All it was was an opinion survey on how you like HO/T lanes and public transit. Nothing actually useful.

EDIT - The current survey actually mentions / discussed GP widening, and is less RE/T focused, though still has a lot of that -
https://va95corridor.metroquest.com/

Worth taking IMO.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 05:12:33 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4584 on: October 11, 2019, 06:43:19 PM »

My thing is knowing VDOT, it’s likely what they’re recommending - no lane widening.
That would completely go against their history, as documented on the Interstate widening table that I produced.
Here's the difference - the entire corridor proposed for widening has HO/T lanes. VDOT has never widened general purpose when HO/T lanes are present. In Hampton Roads for example, all of the proposed lane additions are HO/T, no general purpose. Up in Northern Virginia using that same context, they've expanded the HO/T lanes to 3 lanes, but not any addition to the general purpose.
The problem is, that you are quoting an article that stated "52 miles" and "North Stafford to Northern Virginia."

It's a junk journalism article, and what I can't stand about them is how they are injected into a forum and then all kinds of arguments result over the misinformation in the article.

As far as GP widening where HOT lanes are present, HOT lanes are a very new concept as it has only been 2014 since there has been -one- VDOT facility that has them where there is a demonstrated need for more GP lanes.

So I suggest that we dismiss this sub-thread and await -real- data to come forth from an official source.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

MASTERNC

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1013
  • Last Login: Today at 05:10:31 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4585 on: October 11, 2019, 08:49:07 PM »

The shoulder usage might be a good idea, especially around Woodbridge.  Sunday morning SB traffic is awful around VA 123, while the Express Lanes are open northbound.  Either that, or they need to keep the Express Lanes southbound longer (maybe to midday Sunday).
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4586 on: October 11, 2019, 09:13:42 PM »

I searched around for the VDOT study referenced in the FLS article and came up empty. But I have no problem with the 52 mile reference as 26 miles in each direction would be 52 miles of an additional lane. This is the distance from Garrisonville to Springfield.

I do believe it would be pricey because there isn’t room in the median everywhere  but I also think the quoted figure is high unless multiple  interchanges have to be rebuilt.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4587 on: October 11, 2019, 10:00:02 PM »

The shoulder usage might be a good idea, especially around Woodbridge.  Sunday morning SB traffic is awful around VA 123, while the Express Lanes are open northbound.  Either that, or they need to keep the Express Lanes southbound longer (maybe to midday Sunday).
I never have approved of freeway shoulder usage for traffic.  I know it has been done in a few places, but if a vehicle breaks down, it's a good way for someone to have to be shoveled up.  That is the traffic engineer in me speaking out.

I searched around for the VDOT study referenced in the FLS article and came up empty. But I have no problem with the 52 mile reference as 26 miles in each direction would be 52 miles of an additional lane. This is the distance from Garrisonville to Springfield.
I do believe it would be pricey because there isn’t room in the median everywhere  but I also think the quoted figure is high unless multiple  interchanges have to be rebuilt.
I don't recall VDOT referring to a widening project in that manner anytime.   I also don't see any widening north of VA-123 as I-95 with the 4NB-3R-4SB configuration is IMO fully built out and should not be widened further.

It is time for Maryland to step up to the plate and start planning their portion of a new north-south freeway for the region such as the I-97 Extension along the US-301 and VA-207 corridor.  Not expect VA I-95 to be made into a super-freeway.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:09:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4588 on: October 12, 2019, 04:17:39 AM »

I never have approved of freeway shoulder usage for traffic.  I know it has been done in a few places, but if a vehicle breaks down, it's a good way for someone to have to be shoveled up.  That is the traffic engineer in me speaking out.
Approve it or not, VDOT is continuing forth with them. In Hampton Roads, they already exist on I-264, and are being built as apart of the High Rise Bridge project and HRBT Project. They are also evaluating doing something very similar like I-95 by converting the inner shoulder on the reversible lane segment to a part time HO/T to allow two-way operations.

VDOT is being generous about this IMO - a lot of DOTs would just go ahead and call that “part time shoulder HO/T lane”  a full time HO/T lane and completely eliminate the left shoulder, leaving no area to break down if you’re in the HO/T lane - barrier on your left, those divider things on your right. I think VDOT should just go ahead and do this looking from a traffic standpoint, and from inception get the HRBT built to 8-lanes full time, but I do see the concern with safety.

This is what I’m referring to - https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2958062,-97.7588061,3a,75y,21.74h,87.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shXZlkSBi47sJKrLEmiP1kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 Thats also how I'd like to see the HRBT & HRB projects to be built out - 3 GP + 1 HO/T, not VDOT’s proposed 2 GP + 2 HO/T.

Lastly, the reason they’re even being considered in North Virginia is strictly to only be open the opposite direction of Transurban’s lanes. That way, there would be no compensation events required as the lanes would not compete with Transurban’s. I agree, it sounds dumb, but that’s one major flaw of the contract between them and Virginia signed into it. Yet another reason why P3’s aren’t always perfect.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 04:27:51 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

plain

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2833
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Richmond Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 03:34:00 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4589 on: October 12, 2019, 01:02:38 PM »

When the HOT lanes are finally extended to Fredericksburg, plus the C/D system there, plus construction at northern end of the HOT lanes is finished then it should be a big improvement to the traffic congestion. Any more added GP lanes should be from Woodbridge southward. Transurban wouldn't "lose" money simply because people are already willing to pay to use the HOT lanes where 8 GP lanes already exist anyway.

Adding some more busses would certainly help if need be.

If we did have $12.5b to throw around like that I would rather it go towards a bypass.
Logged
Newark born, Richmond bred

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4590 on: October 15, 2019, 07:55:37 PM »

Quote
One traffic model studied the long-term impacts of adding lanes to a 52-mile stretch of I—95 from North Stafford to Northern Virginia. Adding one lane would cost $12.5 billion, but showed little improvement.
I call bull-ohney.  It is 17 miles between north Stafford County and Woodbridge, and no additional lane is needed north of Woodbridge.

Someone needs to have their reportage/journalistic skills upgraded.  Or else they have been fed a line of baloney by the RE/T groups.

There is some information available now, though no price tag.

The 52 miles studied is actually Exit 118 to Exit 170 and it could be as much as adding 3 lanes...this would clearly require rebuilding most if not all interchanges...

Go to pdf pgs 104-131 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4591 on: October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM »

Route changes coming:

1.  VA 386 will be downgraded to secondary status during the Oct CTB meeting

2.  A 2019 General Assembly Act (to facilitate pedestrian safety at the seat of government) requires the CTB to add to the primary system:
  • Bank St from 9th to 14th
  • 10th from Main to Bank
  • 12th from Main to Bank
  • Governor St from Main to Bank

It did not indicate in the presentation (pg. 6 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf) what the designation would be.  Good chance it becomes part of existing VA 318 which serves the state capitol already.  These segments will be connected to the rest of the primary system because Main St is part of US 60/VA 147.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4592 on: October 15, 2019, 08:29:47 PM »

There is some information available now, though no price tag.
The 52 miles studied is actually Exit 118 to Exit 170 and it could be as much as adding 3 lanes...this would clearly require rebuilding most if not all interchanges...
Go to pdf pgs 104-131 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf
Adding 3 lanes each way would obviously be expensive, but not $240 million per mile, as even the NJTP widening from 6 to 12 lanes a few years ago was 1/3 that per mile.

The problem with adding just one lane each way, is that it costs a lot of money, and if the 20 year projection is that you needed to add 3 lanes each way, then you spent a lot of money for a project that does not anywhere near meet the design year needs.

When I lived near Valley Forge in the 1970s, I observed the need for expansion on that segment of the NJTP between Bordentown (PA TPK) and New Brunswick.  Even around 1975 it was pretty well known that the new I-95 was not going to be built.  So I said why not widen the 6 lane section to 8 lanes, I figured that would be a real help.  Chances are they knew back then what I outlined in the previous paragraph.  Even on the toll-financed NJTP, it took 40 more years before that was widened, the only freeway between Philadelphia and New York City (at least between Bordentown and New Brunswick).
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10936
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:56:48 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4593 on: October 15, 2019, 08:48:54 PM »

Route changes coming:

1.  VA 386 will be downgraded to secondary status during the Oct CTB meeting

Short prison road. I've clinched it, but losing it from my Travel Mapping stats (TM doesn't map the ridiculously large number of Virginia secondary routes) subtracts only 0.99 mile from my total.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:09:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4594 on: October 16, 2019, 05:44:18 AM »

Quote
One traffic model studied the long-term impacts of adding lanes to a 52-mile stretch of I—95 from North Stafford to Northern Virginia. Adding one lane would cost $12.5 billion, but showed little improvement.
I call bull-ohney.  It is 17 miles between north Stafford County and Woodbridge, and no additional lane is needed north of Woodbridge.

Someone needs to have their reportage/journalistic skills upgraded.  Or else they have been fed a line of baloney by the RE/T groups.

There is some information available now, though no price tag.

The 52 miles studied is actually Exit 118 to Exit 170 and it could be as much as adding 3 lanes...this would clearly require rebuilding most if not all interchanges...

Go to pdf pgs 104-131 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf
If VDOT were indeed to add 3 lanes each way, that would be a major operational improvement, but I will say, it’d probably have to be designed similar to the NJTP with two separated roadways each way.

My guess is that potentially the 3 lane widening was the $240 million per mile figure, and that could have potentially been due to creating a dual 3+3+3+3 all the way up to Woodbridge, than 4+3+3+4 up to the Springfield interchange. That type of project is certainly needed IMO, but it would be fantastically expensive from Woodbridge northward.

I say VDOT should get serious and complete a full EIS on such a project, and maybe even build a 4+3+3+4 or 3+3+3+3 on the Beltway segment tying into the existing 2+2+2+2 at the bridge, and expand that to 3+3+3+3. Then VDOT could dump off at Maryland, and it would be on them.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:09:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4595 on: October 16, 2019, 05:53:00 AM »

One thing I call B.S. on in that presentation is the fact that “travel speeds in 2018 were down 7.5% compared with 2009”  on the segment they recently widened to 8-lanes a few years back.

The majority of that corridor has actually improved. What has made “travel speeds”  go “down 7.5%”  is when VDOT added that ridiculous lane drop at Woodbridge which created a -new- choke point that backs up for miles heading southbound that never was an issue before. That has dropped the average speeds of the entire stretch, and now they try to claim the entire project has had no benefit, which is false.

Page 144 agrees with the “RE/T”  approach, that “adding general purpose lanes does not address the issue”  citing their graphs and charts which show little operational improvement, which again I call B.S. on. Funny, how widening even by adding 3 lanes each way will "not help" yet the same presentation shows the current 3 lanes each way they're adding at Fredericksburg will have up over a 50% increase of capacity and traffic flow.

I hold my statement that VDOT -is a joke- for taking this approach. Just taking the easy way out, handing the job to Transurban to “solve congestion” . VDOT has no long term plan to fix I-95 if they don't do GP widening. HO/T lanes appear to be that long term plan backed by a private investor looking for a profit.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 06:24:12 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4596 on: October 16, 2019, 10:28:33 AM »



The majority of that corridor has actually improved. What has made “travel speeds”  go “down 7.5%”  is when VDOT added that ridiculous lane drop at Woodbridge which created a -new- choke point that backs up for miles heading southbound that never was an issue before. That has dropped the average speeds of the entire stretch, and now they try to claim the entire project has had no benefit, which is false.


Not a new chokepoint, per se, but a relocated one.  There were plenty of backups SB at the previous lane drop location before Exit 166.

That said, I do believe the set up at the current drop could've been done better.  I would've started the ramp from 95 SB to VA 123 before the flyover from US 1 and ran it to the right of the flyover to eliminate the weave that happens on mainline 95 with these two ramps now.

Really I thought the 4th lane should've gone to Exit 158 but I'm guessing that was going to be pretty expensive to widen 95 just south of the VA 123 interchange.

95 NB is much better north of VA 123 than before the widening.
Logged

WillWeaverRVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2222
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:02:04 PM
    • WillWeaverRVA Photography
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4597 on: October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM »

Route changes coming:

1.  VA 386 will be downgraded to secondary status during the Oct CTB meeting

2.  A 2019 General Assembly Act (to facilitate pedestrian safety at the seat of government) requires the CTB to add to the primary system:
  • Bank St from 9th to 14th
  • 10th from Main to Bank
  • 12th from Main to Bank
  • Governor St from Main to Bank

It did not indicate in the presentation (pg. 6 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf) what the designation would be.  Good chance it becomes part of existing VA 318 which serves the state capitol already.  These segments will be connected to the rest of the primary system because Main St is part of US 60/VA 147.

If it becomes part of VA 318, then that would end its isolation from the primary system. I'm kind of surprised there was no mention of upgrading 14th St between Main and Broad (both of which are primary already). Then again, considering that all of these streets will likely still be maintained by the City of Richmond (the presentation mentions VDOT can contract maintenance work out to them), it probably doesn't matter.

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 01:22:43 PM by WillWeaverRVA »
Logged
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:09:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4598 on: October 16, 2019, 04:38:03 PM »

95 NB is much better north of VA 123 than before the widening.
Agreed, but VDOT's RE/T study doesn't want you to know that - they look solely at the major chokepoint they added and say the whole thing doesn't work where in reality it works everywhere else.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4599 on: October 16, 2019, 08:35:25 PM »

95 NB is much better north of VA 123 than before the widening.
Agreed, but VDOT's RE/T study doesn't want you to know that - they look solely at the major chokepoint they added and say the whole thing doesn't work where in reality it works everywhere else.
It is not VDOT's study, IMHO, it is something out of the Governor's office and/or the local NVA governments.  I suspect VDOT was not part of it at all, at least nobody in highway administration, and I will try to summarize my reasons for that thought.

I attended the I-95 Corridor meeting in Short Pump yesterday, and the CTB workshop today.

Very enlightening to watch these meetings in person and to interact with these two --

I talked at length to Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine and Deputy Secretary of Transportation Nick Donohue at the I-95 meeting.  Keep in mind that they are appointees of the Governor, as are the CTB members, and they are not part of VDOT.

They are sharp and intelligent people, but they were evasive when I talked about I-95 mainline widening.  She did in fact cite the $12.5 billion for adding one lane each way for 52 miles, and said there were studies that predicted very little traffic improvement 10 years after that was completed.  I cited the project between VA-234 and VA-123 for $400 million to add one lane each way, but I could not get a clear opinion out of either her or Nick or even agreement that this was a locally proposed project 3 years ago.  I asked about compensation events and could not get a definitive answer out of either of them about whether it would happen or how much it could cost.

Today's CTB meeting had an I-95 Corridor presentation by Deputy Secretary of Transportation Nick Donohue, and he talked very rapidly for at least 40 minutes (was he trying to filibuster his way thru?) and there was only a modest amount of member discussion near the end.  He showed "Peak Period Speed Results after Widening" slides (they are in the workshop agenda article on the CTB website) that showed very little change is congestion for 2030 and 2040 and for 1-lane, 2-lane and 3-lane widening scenarios.  Then he said that mainline widening is not recommended due to these 'studies' and that the answer to I-95 is increased service of rail, bus, car pool and van pool.

The charts' ("Peak Period Speed Results after Widening" ) data were provided by "local partners" according to them, so it is unknown as to who produced the "study" that they refer to, but I am pretty sure that VDOT was not part of it.  By the sound of it he was referring to local governments and perhaps anti-highway activist/obstructionist groups.

Not one word stated in the CTB meeting about compensation events, so I don't think that is the factor here.  I think that what I said before is the case, it is something out of the Governor's office and/or the local NVA governments.  The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation is another suspect.

The CTB members were like sheeple during the presentation, but they are political appointees just like the Sec-Trans and Dep-Sec-Trans.  I was hoping that some would speak up and challenge Donohue's "no widening" screed, but no dice.

The $12.5 billion figure was stated in the CTB meeting by Donohue and is the first "whopper" that is served at this table, and frankly that brings everything else into question, and makes me wonder if some of the other entrees are spiked with Ipecac.

If you want to influence the process on I-95 then I would suggest contacting the above parties, the Governor's office, local NVA governments and VDRPT.
 
« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 08:43:47 PM by Beltway »
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.