Hampton Roads, Va. area toll crossings and toll roads

[plain]

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.

Well they certainly fooled me as I just went through there the other night and it certainly didn't look the same as it did the last time I went through (2009 or 2010ish) I certainly don't remember the right shoulders on the original span being that wide either. Could've been a simple resurfacing or something fooling my eyes. I'm probably just mistaking or something lol sorry. In any event I don't see why the bridge wouldn't qualify for interstate designation as it sits today.. the Jersey barriers on both the median and the outer parts of the bridge are as standard as standard gets.
I already agreed with you about the VA 135 overpass situation.

[froggie]

The West Norfolk Bridge has always had a wider right shoulder...that part's not the issue.  The issue is the median barrier...standards call for something taller these days.

[74/171FAN]

As far as Alternative A, how would the six lanes work?  I know that the proposed new tunnel will not have two-way traffic.  Would it be set up so four lanes go one way and two go the other and be switched later that day?  Or will it be set up so that the left-most lane in each direction uses the new tunnel (if it is built between the current ones) with a Jersey barrier separating the lanes?  Or if a new tunnel is built either east or west (HRBT actually is north/south) of the current ones, will one of the original tubes be used in the situation described above?

See page 16 from Chapter 2 of the DEIS.  (this is based on Alt. A)

Basically, the existing tunnels would become two tubes for I-64 WB (the existing WB HRBT would become one lane while the EB HRBT would be two WB lanes).  A new third tube with 3 lanes would be built for I-64 EB.   

CPZ See above,  I quoted myself from earlier in the thread.  No managed/tolled reversible lanes are in the plans.

EDIT: Daily Press states that HOT Lanes could be a part of this.

CTB chooses Alternative A.  Any decisions involving HOT lanes will be decided later.  Also VDOT promises to not affect the property of Hampton University.

[Jmiles32]

Assuming that the new lanes are HOT lanes which the article says is likely, then I think it would make the most sense to extend the current reversible HOV lanes(future HOT lanes) from I-564, up I-64, across the new tube, an then possibly further up the peninsula in which the reversible lanes could split and become one HOT lane(using the existing HOV lane) in each direction similar to what I-395 does near the Pentagon going into DC. I guess a problem with this idea though would be limited space along I-64 in Hampton. 
Personally I would like to see the HRBT be expanded to 4 tubes, 2 in each direction similar to Fort Mckenny Tunnel in Baltimore(I-95) but I realize thats a long shot.

[74/171FAN]

Daily Press:  Potential contractors learn more about project to expand HRBT

Note that it looks like the new lanes will be HOT Lanes.

[74/171FAN]

Daily Press: The I-64 reversible HOV lanes in Norfolk are to officially become HOT Lanes next year.

ABC13:Details emerge on VDOT's plans for I-64 HOT lane tolling

The conversion is scheduled for later this year along an eight-mile stretch of I-64 in Norfolk, from the Interstate 264/64 interchange to Interstate 564.

The HOT lanes will be in effect Monday through Friday from 5 am to 9 am, and then again from 2 to 6 pm. Vehicles with two or more passengers will be able to ride free.

If you're driving solo during peak hours, you can drive in the HOT lane, but you'll have to pay up. At a news conference Wednesday, VDOT Secretary Aubrey Lane said the cost would begin at 50 cents, and then increase based on traffic flow.

Officials say hybrid vehicles are exempt from having a minimum number of people inside in order to use HOV lanes. These vehicles can use the express lanes even if there is only a driver in the car.

[froggie]

Years overdue.

[Jmiles32]

Daily Press: The I-64 reversible HOV lanes in Norfolk are to officially become HOT Lanes next year.

ABC13:Details emerge on VDOT's plans for I-64 HOT lane tolling

The conversion is scheduled for later this year along an eight-mile stretch of I-64 in Norfolk, from the Interstate 264/64 interchange to Interstate 564.

The HOT lanes will be in effect Monday through Friday from 5 am to 9 am, and then again from 2 to 6 pm. Vehicles with two or more passengers will be able to ride free.

If you're driving solo during peak hours, you can drive in the HOT lane, but you'll have to pay up. At a news conference Wednesday, VDOT Secretary Aubrey Lane said the cost would begin at 50 cents, and then increase based on traffic flow.

Officials say hybrid vehicles are exempt from having a minimum number of people inside in order to use HOV lanes. These vehicles can use the express lanes even if there is only a driver in the car.

So when the I-64 HOT lanes are not in effect outside of peak hours or during the weekend, will they go back to HOV lanes?

[cpzilliacus]

The Virginian-Pilot editorial: A relentless, unnecessary tolling quagmire

RELIEF AT LONG last is coming to some motorists adversely affected by tolls at the Downtown and Midtown tunnels between Norfolk and Portsmouth.

But the wretched deal between the commonwealth and Elizabeth River Crossings continues to inflict pain on the communities of south Hampton Roads. It's time for Virginia to consider a radical, expensive but permanent solution.

In 2012, the administration of Gov. Bob McDonnell helped to effectively cleave the region in two, isolating Portsmouth, Suffolk and western Chesapeake from Norfolk and Virginia Beach, and foisting decades of financial hardship on every community here.

The whole of Virginia, of course, benefits when the economic engine of Hampton Roads runs smoothly. This deal was like pouring sand in the gas tank.

[jeffandnicole]

The whole of Virginia, of course, benefits when the economic engine of Hampton Roads runs smoothly. This deal was like pouring sand in the gas tank.

From what I read, the whole of Virginia is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to keep Hampton roads running smoothly.  What is Hampton Roads doing to keep Virginia running smoothly?

[cpzilliacus]

The whole of Virginia, of course, benefits when the economic engine of Hampton Roads runs smoothly. This deal was like pouring sand in the gas tank.

From what I read, the whole of Virginia is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to keep Hampton roads running smoothly.  What is Hampton Roads doing to keep Virginia running smoothly?

1.  The Commonwealth (IMO) does not give enough dollars to Hampton Roads and to Northern Virginia, the two areas that keep the rest of it running and supplied with tax dollars.

2.  Hampton Roads has the large military bases, and the some of the largest seaport facilities on the East Coast, for importing and exporting things.  It's also something of a tourist draw, including Virginia Beach and the area of Williamsburg and Jamestown.

On more direct note, I personally disagree with  Virginia's emphasis on private sector companies being allowed to take over and improve parts of the transportation infrastructure and then ruin the lives of some people with very high tolls (and more to the point, excessive penalties and  fees, which are often  IMO unconscionable).  Much better for Virginia to have its own statewide toll road and toll crossing agency which is accountable to its citizens.

[froggie]

From what I read, the whole of Virginia is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to keep Hampton roads running smoothly.  What is Hampton Roads doing to keep Virginia running smoothly?

I'd like to know where you read this...especially considering that, as CP alluded to, Hampton Roads is the #2 economic engine for the entire state.

[74/171FAN]

FHWA chooses Alternative A in its Record of Decision.

[cpzilliacus]

FHWA chooses Alternative A in its Record of Decision.

I personally disagree with retaining "free" crossings of Hampton Roads. That is expensive infrastructure to operate and maintain, and the users should be required to fund at least some of that with tolls.

[froggie]

I agree that major water crossings are expensive to maintain.  But on the flip side, there is a very real fear that you will isolate the Southside of Hampton Roads if you reinstitute tolls at the HRBT, MMBT, and JRB.  We're already seeing indications that Portsmouth is starting to suffer with the reinstitution of tolls at the Midtown and Downtown tunnels.

[LM117]

FHWA chooses Alternative A in its Record of Decision.

I personally disagree with retaining "free" crossings of Hampton Roads. That is expensive infrastructure to operate and maintain, and the users should be required to fund at least some of that with tolls.

I strongly disagree with tolling all crossings. Portsmouth has already been hit hard and Hampton Roads' economy isn't exactly booming thanks to it's heavy reliance on the military. Tolling all crossings is a surefire way to keep the local economy stagnant, if not make it worse.

[roadman65]

FHWA chooses Alternative A in its Record of Decision.

I personally disagree with retaining "free" crossings of Hampton Roads. That is expensive infrastructure to operate and maintain, and the users should be required to fund at least some of that with tolls.

I strongly disagree with tolling all crossings. Portsmouth has already been hit hard and Hampton Roads' economy isn't exactly booming thanks to it's heavy reliance on the military. Tolling all crossings is a surefire way to keep the local economy stagnant, if not make it worse.

Might of reinstate the I-264 tolls as well.  Or Richmond area should reinstate the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike.  You will open a can of worms when you do this

However, they could do it  on this principal that if people keep following their GPSes and ignore road signs as well as  their own ability to orientate themselves, as it would be all AET (Like the Midtown and Downtown currently have with EZPass) and many would not know that its a tolled facility.  They would take advantage of ignorance and probably know of this already, as who cares about us in the minds of people in power.

[Rothman]

FHWA chooses Alternative A in its Record of Decision.

I personally disagree with retaining "free" crossings of Hampton Roads. That is expensive infrastructure to operate and maintain, and the users should be required to fund at least some of that with tolls.

Pfft.  They already pay taxes.

[plain]

FHWA chooses Alternative A in its Record of Decision.

I personally disagree with retaining "free" crossings of Hampton Roads. That is expensive infrastructure to operate and maintain, and the users should be required to fund at least some of that with tolls.

Pfft.  They already pay taxes.

I'm really not trying to sound like that type of guy but I'm just gonna say it: they don't pay enough taxes.

Anyone remember when the people in that area rejected the tax increase to pay for all this? The main reason for Hampton Roads' ills and almost non-existent population growth is because of the traffic. Every single expressway sees some sort of congestion except for the Chesapeake Expwy and the very recently freewayed Dominion Blvd. When visitors visit the area and catch all sorts of hell doing so, that's not leaving a good impression with them... more likely than not they're going to avoid actually moving there.

I know tolls are not popular at all with anybody but I feel that officials have very little choice. But at least only the new lanes (and tunnel) on the HRBT will be tolled.

[cpzilliacus]

Might of reinstate the I-264 tolls as well.  Or Richmond area should reinstate the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike.  You will open a can of worms when you do this

With the old cash tolling (especially on the RPT, especially before I-295 was complete) yes, that would be a mistake.

The congestion to pay the cash tolls on the Turnpike were terrible at  times and there are greater crash risks at the toll barriers too.

Not with all-electronic toll collection, however.

However, they could do it  on this principal that if people keep following their GPSes and ignore road signs as well as  their own ability to orientate themselves, as it would be all AET (Like the Midtown and Downtown currently have with EZPass) and many would not know that its a tolled facility.  They would take advantage of ignorance and probably know of this already, as who cares about us in the minds of people in power.

Most GPS software tells the driver that they are being routed onto a road or crossing that charges tolls (I took it  upon myself to have the geographic files for one small toll crossing between Maryland and West Virginia updated because I learned that many drivers were pulling up to the modest toll gate and getting angry when they were asked to pay the toll ($1.50 cash one way)).

I have been on the ERC crossings since they were (re)tolled, but have not had a chance to look closely  at the signage to see if I feel it is clear.

But the signs on cashless toll lanes and roads in Northern Virginia and the two in Maryland seem to me to be pretty clear (IMO it also helped that these were lanes that were new, and there was no  history of "free" operation).

[Mapmikey]

Traffic counts in recent years:

2013:
Midtown Tunnel (US 58): 36,000
Downtown Tunnel (I-264): 86,000
Jordan Bridge (VA 337): 6,400

2014 (tolls reinstated at the tunnels):
Midtown Tunnel (US 58): 32,000
Downtown Tunnel (I-264): 65,000
Jordan Bridge (VA 337): 6,200

2015:
Midtown Tunnel (US 58): 32,000
Downtown Tunnel (I-264): 70,000
Jordan Bridge (VA 337): 6,300

2016:
Midtown Tunnel (US 58): 28,000
Downtown Tunnel (I-264): 76,000
Jordan Bridge (VA 337): 7,900

So it appears there were drops in traffic after the tolls went back in place, though I-264 appears to be recovering back towards its pre-toll levels.  It will be interesting to see if the Midtown Tunnel picks up in 2017 because traffic congestion should be lessened by the 2nd tube (perhaps the drop in traffic is partially explained by people not wanting to pay a toll to be stuck in slow congestion trying to use the facility).

As for the bigger picture, I would separate out the idea of toll roads staying toll indefinitely versus distinct facilities like the bridge-tunnels.  Once the tolls are removed from the toll roads, the state can then spread out the maintenance and upgrades over time on various segments and not have to do the whole road at once (e.g. The Richmond-Petersburg Tpk has been updated in much smaller segments than the entire roadway) which fits the VDOT budgeting amount and processes.  The problem with the bridge-tunnels is that other than the CBBT, it isn't very practical to rebuild in pieces - you have to do the whole thing all at once.  The price tags for this approach the entirety of the annual VDOT budget, so unless you want to literally do nothing else in Virginia one year, it seems that tolls or special taxes, etc. are required to ever get it done.

Keep in mind that the only reason (IMO) that MMBT and HRBT (EB lanes) weren't tolled to begin with is that they were funded under the 90/10 rule for interstates and Virginia was able to meet its 10% obligation without tolls or other stuff.  When Virginia has had to foot the entire bill (HRBT WB lanes, CBBT, Midtown and Downtown Tunnels) they instituted tolls.

For other smaller structures (e.g. US 17 York R bridge and VA 3 Rappahannock bridge) it seems like once the tolls have accumulated enough to pay off the original construction cost, tolls should be dropped but maybe not eliminated entirely, which can ease toll amounts when the replacement facilities come along someday.

[Rothman]

Keep in mind that the only reason (IMO) that MMBT and HRBT (EB lanes) weren't tolled to begin with is that they were funded under the 90/10 rule for interstates and Virginia was able to meet its 10% obligation without tolls or other stuff.  When Virginia has had to foot the entire bill (HRBT WB lanes, CBBT, Midtown and Downtown Tunnels) they instituted tolls.

Given that states have to first instance the entire cost for federal-aid projects I don't see how the fact that VA could cover the match the design and construction cost would lead to them not putting tolls on the facilities.

I would put a much firmer bet on political pressure.  I am also unsure of where FHWA regs stood at the time, especially when the MMBT was built.  Because I-664 was new, it may have had to have been toll-free at that time due to the regulations regarding the use of federal funds at the time.

[Beltway]

Keep in mind that the only reason (IMO) that MMBT and HRBT (EB lanes) weren't tolled to begin with is that they were funded under the 90/10 rule for interstates and Virginia was able to meet its 10% obligation without tolls or other stuff.  When Virginia has had to foot the entire bill (HRBT WB lanes, CBBT, Midtown and Downtown Tunnels) they instituted tolls.

Given that states have to first instance the entire cost for federal-aid projects I don't see how the fact that VA could cover the match the design and construction cost would lead to them not putting tolls on the facilities.

I would put a much firmer bet on political pressure.  I am also unsure of where FHWA regs stood at the time, especially when the MMBT was built.  Because I-664 was new, it may have had to have been toll-free at that time due to the regulations regarding the use of federal funds at the time.

VDOT built them as new Interstate construction and as such they qualified for 90% Federal Aid Interstate funding.  FHWA did not allow tolls on such FAI Interstate highways then, plus the region wanted them to be toll-free.

[Rothman]

Keep in mind that the only reason (IMO) that MMBT and HRBT (EB lanes) weren't tolled to begin with is that they were funded under the 90/10 rule for interstates and Virginia was able to meet its 10% obligation without tolls or other stuff.  When Virginia has had to foot the entire bill (HRBT WB lanes, CBBT, Midtown and Downtown Tunnels) they instituted tolls.

Given that states have to first instance the entire cost for federal-aid projects I don't see how the fact that VA could cover the match the design and construction cost would lead to them not putting tolls on the facilities.

I would put a much firmer bet on political pressure.  I am also unsure of where FHWA regs stood at the time, especially when the MMBT was built.  Because I-664 was new, it may have had to have been toll-free at that time due to the regulations regarding the use of federal funds at the time.

VDOT built them as new Interstate construction and as such they qualified for 90% Federal Aid Interstate funding.  FHWA did not allow tolls on such FAI Interstate highways then, plus the region wanted them to be toll-free.

Voila.  My suspicions confirmed.

[Beltway]

Keep in mind that the only reason (IMO) that MMBT and HRBT (EB lanes) weren't tolled to begin with is that they were funded under the 90/10 rule for interstates and Virginia was able to meet its 10% obligation without tolls or other stuff.  When Virginia has had to foot the entire bill (HRBT WB lanes, CBBT, Midtown and Downtown Tunnels) they instituted tolls.

Given that states have to first instance the entire cost for federal-aid projects I don't see how the fact that VA could cover the match the design and construction cost would lead to them not putting tolls on the facilities.

I would put a much firmer bet on political pressure.  I am also unsure of where FHWA regs stood at the time, especially when the MMBT was built.  Because I-664 was new, it may have had to have been toll-free at that time due to the regulations regarding the use of federal funds at the time.

VDOT built them as new Interstate construction and as such they qualified for 90% Federal Aid Interstate funding.  FHWA did not allow tolls on such FAI Interstate highways then, plus the region wanted them to be toll-free.

Voila.  My suspicions confirmed.

Very expensive new construction Interstate projects, but generally FHWA funded them if the state would provide the 10% matching funds (which could be a large sum in and of itself).