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.