Hampton Roads, Va. area toll crossings and toll roads

[froggie]

(I got $53.8 million assuming 70,000 ADT on the Downtown Tunnel (based on 2015 traffic counts)

Too low of a volume.  Downtown Tunnel is in the 90K vicinity.  The lower value for 2015 is likely due to the ongoing tunnel rehabilitation that year.

[cpzilliacus]

We know that Virginia's governor wants $500,000 a year from the ERC group.  I do not think we know is how much revenue is ERC collecting.  Half a million dollars a year might not be that much for them.

That seems to be the case as I thought about it and made a couple rough calculations (I got $53.8 million assuming 70,000 ADT on the Downtown Tunnel (based on 2015 traffic counts) and 40,000 ADT on the Midtown Tunnel (assuming an increase from the 32,000 in 2015 in the next couple years) using a $1.50 average toll).

Even if that is a conservative estimate of revenue, I still think they  can afford a hit of $500,000 a year based on the above, though I wonder if the ERC bondholders can raise objections.

(I got $53.8 million assuming 70,000 ADT on the Downtown Tunnel (based on 2015 traffic counts)

Too low of a volume.  Downtown Tunnel is in the 90K vicinity.  The lower value for 2015 is likely due to the ongoing tunnel rehabilitation that year.

Concur, based on personal limited knowledge, and your extensive experience driving in this area.

Will highway users in Northern Virginia ask "where's mine?" 

The best they may get is a VA 7 freeway from US 15 to VA 28 that may keep some traffic off VA 267/Dulles Greenway.  (This is the best source I could find on it.)

I doubt it will happen.  I think there would be a lot of opposition along the Dranesville, Fairfax County part of the  corridor. 

[froggie]

The best they may get is a VA 7 freeway from US 15 to VA 28 that may keep some traffic off VA 267/Dulles Greenway.  (This is the best source I could find on it.)

I doubt it will happen.  I think there would be a lot of opposition along the Dranesville, Fairfax County part of the  corridor.

Doubtful.  First, that locale is well outside the corridor segment mentioned, as all of VA 7 between US 15 and VA 28 is within Loudoun County.  Second, enough of the Dranesville population wants to see VA 7 widened to 6 lanes between 286 and the DTR.  If there's opposition in Dranesville, it would be because they want VDOT to focus on their widening instead of focusing on a freeway upgrade.

[cpzilliacus]

The best they may get is a VA 7 freeway from US 15 to VA 28 that may keep some traffic off VA 267/Dulles Greenway.  (This is the best source I could find on it.)

I doubt it will happen.  I think there would be a lot of opposition along the Dranesville, Fairfax County part of the  corridor.

Doubtful.  First, that locale is well outside the corridor segment mentioned, as all of VA 7 between US 15 and VA 28 is within Loudoun County.  Second, enough of the Dranesville population wants to see VA 7 widened to 6 lanes between 286 and the DTR.  If there's opposition in Dranesville, it would be because they want VDOT to focus on their widening instead of focusing on a freeway upgrade.

My understanding is that there are plenty of people along the  Fairfax County part of VA-7 that want nothing done to the highway at all.

Not widening.  Not a freeway.

Now that's not what the VDOT Six Year Program has in its database, which is Reconstruction w/ Added Capacity.   Jarrett Valley Drive is just west of the VA-267 interchange, which is being improved as part of a different project.

[74/171FAN]

(I got $53.8 million assuming 70,000 ADT on the Downtown Tunnel (based on 2015 traffic counts)

Too low of a volume.  Downtown Tunnel is in the 90K vicinity.  The lower value for 2015 is likely due to the ongoing tunnel rehabilitation that year.

I am certain you are right.  I need to revisit the Downtown Tunnel ASAP for my own purposes.  (It will probably get done when I get to drive the new Midtown Tunnel.)

Here is the actual toll relief plan for only Norfolk and Portsmouth residents.

[74/171FAN]

Unsure if tolls will be involved here, but there is a public hearing in Chesapeake on the widening of I-64 from I-664 in Bowers Hill to east of I-464 tomorrow night.

[froggie]

Per the project website, the additional capacity "will operate as managed lanes."  The website does not specify (yet) whether that management option will be HOV, HO/T, or all-lanes-tolled.  VDOT does have the authority to toll all lanes on a new High Rise Bridge.  They might also have the authority to institute congestion pricing on all I-64 lanes elsewhere, but I'm not 100% on that.

Also, while budgetary constraints are likely why they're proposing a 6 lane section instead of the CTB-approved 8 lanes, it would be a pity if they didn't build the new High Rise Bridge with 4 lanes plus full shoulders.  It's highly unlikely that any such bridge would receive a widening project down the road.  Furthermore, it would enable them to run 3 lanes each direction on that new span when (if?) they ever replace the existing span.  Their current plan is to build a new bridge for Norfolk-bound (i.e. I-64 "West") traffic and leave the existing bridge for Bowers Hill-bound traffic.

[LM117]

Unsure if tolls will be involved here, but there is a public hearing in Chesapeake on the widening of I-64 from I-664 in Bowers Hill to east of I-464 tomorrow night.

It can't come soon enough! Last time I drove through there it was a parking lot. I'd prefer 8 lanes, but even 6 lanes would be an improvement, so I'm happy.

[74/171FAN]

Tolls are rising again on the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels next year.

[plain]

Tolls are rising again on the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels next year.

right on schedule smh get ready for a load of complaints all over again 

[froggie]

Annual toll increases for the first few years were announced when tolling began.  This isn't news except for those drivers/politicians with extremely short memories...

[plain]

Annual toll increases for the first few years were announced when tolling began.  This isn't news except for those drivers/politicians with extremely short memories...

Exactly

[cpzilliacus]

Annual toll increases for the first few years were announced when tolling began.  This isn't news except for those drivers/politicians (wanting to take cheap shots at ERC and harumph about tolls in general) with extremely short memories...

FTFY.

It's similar to the anger that has been directed at the operators of the Dulles Greenway (VA-267) in Loudoun County by certain elected officials.

[74/171FAN]

(Quote posted in general VA thread)

Just saw on the news that the MLK Expressway extension is set to open tomorrow (11/30/16)!! The report showed aerial coverage of it and a BGS was shown displaying "TOLL US 58" on the viaduct. I thought VA 164 would've went on this segment...

I found the news release from Elizabeth River Tunnels on this.  The extension is still to be VA 164.

[Mapmikey]

(Quote posted in general VA thread)

Just saw on the news that the MLK Expressway extension is set to open tomorrow (11/30/16)!! The report showed aerial coverage of it and a BGS was shown displaying "TOLL US 58" on the viaduct. I thought VA 164 would've went on this segment...

I found the news release from Elizabeth River Tunnels on this.  The extension is still to be VA 164.

Does anyone know what the final status of VA 337 ALT in this area will be?

Fixed quote.  -Mark

[froggie]

I haven't heard.  But related to the opening, a WVEC reporter posted a video to Twitter this afternoon showing the extension signed as VA 164 from westbound I-264.

https://twitter.com/13JemieLee/status/804031053207924736

[plain]

Oh ok cool.. it makes more since to have VA 164 there. I'm going to take that drive this weekend while I'm down that way to check things out

[74/171FAN]

https://twitter.com/DriveERT/status/804077896537165829



MLK Expressway Extension is officially open.

[mrsman]

Oh ok cool.. it makes more since to have VA 164 there. I'm going to take that drive this weekend while I'm down that way to check things out

Correct.  The freeways in this area are all x64s.  Most are interstate, but VA 164 probably doesn't meet interstate standards for some reason. 

US 58 is basically a surface street routing in this entire area.  From Bowers Hills to the Ocean, US 58 closely relates to I-264.  There is no reason to place US 58 along the extension.

This new extension will make it much easier to get from the I-664 bridge-tunnel to Norfolk and Virginia Beach.

[froggie]

^ Moreso that the new extension makes it easier to use the Midtown Tunnel to avoid the Downtown Tunnel and vice versa.  Since the Pinners Point Interchange was completed in 2004, it had already been fairly easy to get from 664/MMBT to Norfolk.

[plain]

Correct.  The freeways in this area are all x64s.  Most are interstate, but VA 164 probably doesn't meet interstate standards for some reason.

Usually it would be a safe bet to assume that just based off of traditional practices... but trust me on this one: VA 164 is definitely built to interstate standards for it's entire length.

Also, I had a chance to see the extension up close and personal late last night. In true Virginia fashion (by this I mean confusing to the general public smdh), the extension is definitely signed as VA 164 in the BGS' on I-264 as froggie mentioned... however, once on the extension itself, the pull thru BGS at the High St exit only shows US 58 toll with no mention of VA 164, as I saw in the news report. I attempted to take pics but the rain ruined it for me. I will try again sometime this week

[Mapmikey]

Oh ok cool.. it makes more since to have VA 164 there. I'm going to take that drive this weekend while I'm down that way to check things out

Virginia applied for interstate status for VA 164 in 1968 when Congress allotted additional mileage but was turned down.

Don't believe there is any reason VDOT couldn't reapply if they wanted to, unless there is something deficient about the Western Branch bridge...

[froggie]

The median barrier on the Western Branch bridge may be substandard now (too low/short).  Also, with the median rail line, the inside shoulders are now substandard.  These are not insurmountable with one exception:  the eastbound shoulder underneath the VA 135 bridge would require a waiver because of the bridge pier proximity.

[plain]

The median barrier on the Western Branch bridge may be substandard now (too low/short).  Also, with the median rail line, the inside shoulders are now substandard.  These are not insurmountable with one exception:  the eastbound shoulder underneath the VA 135 bridge would require a waiver because of the bridge pier proximity.

Don't believe there is any reason VDOT couldn't reapply if they wanted to, unless there is something deficient about the Western Branch bridge...

The original 1978 span of the VA 164 Western Branch Bridge was rebuilt to interstate standards a few years after VDOT completed it's extension and interchange to US 58/MLK Fwy.
https://goo.gl/maps/RBHrYKqzhc72

As for the section where the railroad occupies the median, VDOT has plenty of room to add another foot to the left shoulder of each carriageway if needed for interstate designation, even though I believe the highway can receive it in its present form (I-795 in NC cleared with little problems). I can see why the VA 135 overpass would require a waiver in the eastbound lanes as you said though. I think that's another thing that VDOT didn't plan out well as I'm sure they were also trying to design the highway to be expanded to 6 lanes when warranted.. that bridge support is in the way of even a standard shoulder

[froggie]

The original 1978 span of the VA 164 Western Branch Bridge was rebuilt to interstate standards a few years after VDOT completed it's extension and interchange to US 58/MLK Fwy.

No it wasn't.  I was stationed in Norfolk at the time and up through 2014, and the original 1978 span that wasn't directly redone for the Pinners Point Interchange remains as-is.

As for the section where the railroad occupies the median, VDOT has plenty of room to add another foot to the left shoulder of each carriageway if needed for interstate designation, even though I believe the highway can receive it in its present form (I-795 in NC cleared with little problems).

In this case, because of the railroad, they would need to pave a full 10' shoulder for it to be Interstate standard.  And there definitely isn't 10' of room underneath VA 135...hence why a waiver would be required there.