Hampton Roads, Va. area toll crossings and toll roads

[cpzilliacus]

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).

As I think you  know, the federal government allowed Maryland to collect (and they continue to collect) tolls on I-95 at the  FMT (Fort McHenry Tunnel) in Baltimore, even though the state received 90% Interstate funding to build it, presumably in part because the cost of building that crossing was extremely  expensive (and it is not cheap to operate and maintain either).

[Beltway]

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).

As I think you  know, the federal government allowed Maryland to collect (and they continue to collect) tolls on I-95 at the  FMT (Fort McHenry Tunnel) in Baltimore, even though the state received 90% Interstate funding to build it, presumably in part because the cost of building that crossing was extremely expensive (and it is not cheap to operate and maintain either).

Yes I did, and after 32 years where they would have had plenty of time to pay off that 10%, they are still allowed to have tolls; I wonder how FHWA provided for the toll extension.  The other two tolled harbor crossings (I-895 and I-695) did not receive federal funds.  There would be a traffic balance issue whereby making the I-95 crossing toll-free would cause a major imbalance in traffic distribution between the crossings, unless all three were made toll-free and that would be unlikely.  I'm sure that MdTA wants to keep tolls on all three.

The I-77 West Virginia Turnpike expansion in the 1980s was also funded with 90% federal funds, and they were allowed to continue collecting tolls, it was another very expensive project.

But these were exceptional cases, the rule for nearly every other major Interstate project funded with 90% federal funds was that it would be toll-free.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

As I think you  know, the federal government allowed Maryland to collect (and they continue to collect) tolls on I-95 at the  FMT (Fort McHenry Tunnel) in Baltimore, even though the state received 90% Interstate funding to build it, presumably in part because the cost of building that crossing was extremely expensive (and it is not cheap to operate and maintain either).

Yes I did, and after 32 years where they would have had plenty of time to pay off that 10%, they are still allowed to have tolls; I wonder how FHWA provided for the toll extension.  The other two tolled harbor crossings (I-895 and I-695) did not receive federal funds.  There would be a traffic balance issue whereby making the I-95 crossing toll-free would cause a major imbalance in traffic distribution between the crossings, unless all three were made toll-free and that would be unlikely.  I'm sure that MdTA wants to keep tolls on all three.

The MDTA wants the revenue, and they really need it, even for the FMT (I-95), which is starting to  show signs of age, even though it is much newer than  the BHT (I-895).   I have read that they are replacing or rehabilitating the FMT tunnel decks, the lighting system in the tunnel tubes, the high-mast lighting at the approaches to the tunnel portals and toll plaza and the exhaust fan systems (among other things).

The I-77 West Virginia Turnpike expansion in the 1980s was also funded with 90% federal funds, and they were allowed to continue collecting tolls, it was another very expensive project.

Agreed.

But these were exceptional cases, the rule for nearly every other major Interstate project funded with 90% federal funds was that it would be toll-free.

Also agreed, though I think with sections of Interstate that are uniquely expensive to operate and maintain (and the two "free"  bridge tunnel crossings over and under Hampton Roads definitely qualify), I think  tolling should be allowed, if the state agency wants to do that.  Beyond that, the "original" HRBT (when it was two lanes undivided) was a toll crossing (I think we crossed it once or twice when I was a child).

This is one reason I do not  have a problem with the Pennsylvania Turnpike, with its many tunnels charging tolls (though I am not a fan of the Act 44/Act 89 exorbitant toll rates with the dollars  then diverted  to subsidize things having nothing to do with the Turnpike).

[74/171FAN]

Daily Press:  Rep. Rob Wittman eyes Defense dollars to reduce toll on Coleman Bridge

Considering the toll is only $2 for cars that is NB only ($0.85 with an EZPASS), I have a hard time believing that the Navy would justify this.

[plain]

Daily Press:  Rep. Rob Wittman eyes Defense dollars to reduce toll on Coleman Bridge

Considering the toll is only $2 for cars that is NB only ($0.85 with an EZPASS), I have a hard time believing that the Navy would justify this.

Yeah I doubt this will occur

[cpzilliacus]

Daily Press:  Rep. Rob Wittman eyes Defense dollars to reduce toll on Coleman Bridge

Considering the toll is only $2 for cars that is NB only ($0.85 with an EZPASS), I have a hard time believing that the Navy would justify this.

IMO ridiculous. 

People that moved to the Middle Peninsula of Virginia after the most-recent  imposition of tolls (or when it  was being discussed) knew darned well that there would be  a modest toll to cross the Coleman Bridge.

If Department of Defense employees and contractors do not want to pay that toll, then there are plenty of places in Virginia and even North Carolina where they can live without having cross that bridge.

[74/171FAN]

Virginian-Pilot:Could ERC be eyeing changes to the way it tolls Midtown, Downtown tunnels? Survey asks for opinion on HOV

Most notably, there is no mention of the EZPASS Flex.

[Jmiles32]

Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 16, 2017, 12:09:52 AM
IMO I-64 needs to be 8 lanes from I-664 to I-564 with four separate two lane tubes/bridges at the HRBT, basically like the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore.

Looks like something similar may happen after all
http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-hrbt-extra-lanes-20170921-story.html

The Virginia Department of Transportation is working on an idea to add four tunnel lanes, instead of two, to the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel to speed traffic between the Peninsula and South Hampton Roads.

The idea is to add one lane each way over land, in order to keep VDOT's promise to keep approaches to the HRBT within the current right of way for Interstate 64, but to add two lanes in each direction once the roadway goes over and then under the water, said Kevin Page, executive director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission, the regional transportation funding body.

The three-by-land, four-by-water approach is similar to I-95's Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, Page said.

"Based on what we know now, it looks feasible,"  said Martha Gross, major projects manager for VDOT.

"In addition to dealing with congestion, it's a chance to get the tunnel capacity we need now, instead of 20 years from now,"  she added.

[Beltway]

The idea is to add one lane each way over land, in order to keep VDOT's promise to keep approaches to the HRBT within the current right of way for Interstate 64, but to add two lanes in each direction once the roadway goes over and then under the water, said Kevin Page, executive director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission, the regional transportation funding body.

The three-by-land, four-by-water approach is similar to I-95's Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, Page said.
"Based on what we know now, it looks feasible,"  said Martha Gross, major projects manager for VDOT.
"In addition to dealing with congestion, it's a chance to get the tunnel capacity we need now, instead of 20 years from now,"  she added.

That's baloney any way you slice it.

That is NOT similar to I-95 in Baltimore, as it was built as an 8 lane (4 each way) highway thru Baltimore, with lane drops to 3 lanes at the planned interchanges with I-70 and I-83, given the large amounts of traffic that would exit before and enter after the junction.  After the I-70 and I-83 extensions were canceled, the highway was widened to 4 lanes each way at unbuilt I-70 and soon will be at unbuilt I-83.  North of Eastern Avenue I-95 will be widened to 4 lanes each way as well up to the I-895 split. 

VDOT needs to either provide 4 lanes each way on I-64 between I-664 in Hampton and I-564 in Norfolk, or forget about widening this segment at all.

Spending $3.4 billion to merely widen this segment to 6 lanes (3 each way), is a fantastic waste of money, for a highway that would be obsolete when completed, and I can't believe that they can actually assemble that size of funding package in the first place.

[froggie]

You can stop your blow-up, Scott.  It's been well documented that water crossings are far more of a chokepoint than regular highways-on-land.  Given the tendency for drivers to slow down considerably for tunnel crossings, going to 4 lanes each way through the tunnel makes a lot of sense.

[Beltway]

You can stop your blow-up, Scott.  It's been well documented that water crossings are far more of a chokepoint than regular highways-on-land.  Given the tendency for drivers to slow down considerably for tunnel crossings, going to 4 lanes each way through the tunnel makes a lot of sense.

Why are you defending this project, Adam?   I have never heard of building more lanes in a highway tunnel than on the approaches.  It is a waste of resources.

[compdude787]

You can stop your blow-up, Scott.  It's been well documented that water crossings are far more of a chokepoint than regular highways-on-land.  Given the tendency for drivers to slow down considerably for tunnel crossings, going to 4 lanes each way through the tunnel makes a lot of sense.

Makes sense to me.

[cpzilliacus]

That is NOT similar to I-95 in Baltimore, as it was built as an 8 lane (4 each way) highway thru Baltimore, with lane drops to 3 lanes at the planned interchanges with I-70 and I-83, given the large amounts of traffic that would exit before and enter after the junction.  After the I-70 and I-83 extensions were canceled, the highway was widened to 4 lanes each way at unbuilt I-70 and soon will be at unbuilt I-83.  North of Eastern Avenue I-95 will be widened to 4 lanes each way as well up to the I-895 split. 

I-95 in Baltimore City will be continuously four lanes each way for a total of 8 from just north of the Fort McHenry Tunnel toll plaza to the I-95/I-895 junction on the northeast side of Baltimore.  There were (are, for now) three lane sections between the tolls and Exit 59, MD-150, Eastern Avenue, but these will be gone soon enough.

[froggie]

^^^ It's not a "waste" when you consider the particulars of traffic at the HRBT.  I'd have preferred an 8 lane facility throughout, but I'll take 6 lanes on land and 8 lanes across the HRBT any day over the current situation.

[Beltway]

^^^ It's not a "waste" when you consider the particulars of traffic at the HRBT.  I'd have preferred an 8 lane facility throughout, but I'll take 6 lanes on land and 8 lanes across the HRBT any day over the current situation.

Not worth $3.4 billion, as I already stated, to gain one thru lane each way.

The transportation authority claims that they have the funding package, but I can't believe that, especially when the only toll revenue would be from one HOT lane each way.

[cpzilliacus]

^^^ It's not a "waste" when you consider the particulars of traffic at the HRBT.  I'd have preferred an 8 lane facility throughout, but I'll take 6 lanes on land and 8 lanes across the HRBT any day over the current situation.

Perversely, you have nearly the opposite when approaching from the  Hampton side - a nice wide freeway coming down the Peninsula (and work is in progress there now), that gets narrower and narrower as traffic approaches the last exit eastbound at VA-169, leading predictably to long queues of traffic. 

IMO, the HRBT should be 8  lanes, and ideally toll-supported (along with the I-664 and U.S. 17 crossings of the lower James River).

[LM117]

IMO, the HRBT should be 8  lanes, and ideally toll-supported (along with the I-664 and U.S. 17 crossings of the lower James River).

I agree that the HRBT should be 8 lanes, but there's no chance in hell of Hampton Roads supporting the idea of tolling all the major crossings. It's a good way to put a damper on an already anemic Hampton Roads economy. Ask Portsmouth how well the tolled crossings over the Elizabeth River benefitted them...

[Beltway]

IMO, the HRBT should be 8  lanes, and ideally toll-supported (along with the I-664 and U.S. 17 crossings of the lower James River).

I agree that the HRBT should be 8 lanes, but there's no chance in hell of Hampton Roads supporting the idea of tolling all the major crossings. It's a good way to put a damper on an already anemic Hampton Roads economy. Ask Portsmouth how well the tolled crossings over the Elizabeth River benefitted them...

The Elizabeth River Tunnels Project has huge benefits to Portsmouth and other South Hampton Roads cities, but the re-tolling of tunnels that were de-tolled in 1987, has been a hard pill to swallow for many people in the region.

If they try to re-toll the Hampton Roads crossings (actually I-664 has never been tolled), I would expect enormous public opposition to the point to where it probably would be impossible to approve.

The block to making the HRBT corridor 8 lanes, is the approaches in Hampton and Norfolk between I-664 and I-564.  You can see on Google Maps Satellite View how the original highway sliced thru neighborhoods and across estuarial creeks.  Widening the highway to 8 lanes would have major right-of-way impacts to many homes and those estuarial creeks.  Again, approving this widening would be close to impossible if not actually impossible.

[cpzilliacus]

IMO, the HRBT should be 8  lanes, and ideally toll-supported (along with the I-664 and U.S. 17 crossings of the lower James River).

I agree that the HRBT should be 8 lanes, but there's no chance in hell of Hampton Roads supporting the idea of tolling all the major crossings. It's a good way to put a damper on an already anemic Hampton Roads economy. Ask Portsmouth how well the tolled crossings over the Elizabeth River benefitted them...

The HRBT (I-64 and U.S. 60) and the  James River Bridge (U.S. 17 and U.S. 258) were originally toll crossings.  The MMMBT (I-664) was always "free" to cross.

All of them are expensive to maintain and require constant monitoring and patrol for obvious reasons. 

If people in the area want more highway capacity across the Hampton Roads, they have three choices:

(1) Get the Virginia General Assembly to approve another (large) increase in motor fuel taxes to fund the construction of more capacity;
(2) Go along with tolling; or
(3) Continue to deal with extensive and worsening congestion approaching the crossings.

There's no "free" opinion available.

[Beltway]

The HRBT (I-64 and U.S. 60) and the  James River Bridge (U.S. 17 and U.S. 258) were originally toll crossings.  The MMMBT (I-664) was always "free" to cross.
All of them are expensive to maintain and require constant monitoring and patrol for obvious reasons. 
If people in the area want more highway capacity across the Hampton Roads, they have three choices:
(1) Get the Virginia General Assembly to approve another (large) increase in motor fuel taxes to fund the construction of more capacity;
(2) Go along with tolling; or
(3) Continue to deal with extensive and worsening congestion approaching the crossings.
There's no "free" opinion available.

(4) They could extend I-564 to I-664 for $4 billion and have a whole new 4-lane bridge-tunnel which could exploit the much lower traffic volumes on I-664 in both directions, between Norfolk and Newport News, and between Norfolk and Suffolk.  It would also serve as an uptown crossing of the Elizabeth River and provide more capacity beyond that of the existing two Elizabeth River tunnels.  It would also complete a South Hampton Roads Beltway.  It could be tolled.

[cpzilliacus]

The HRBT (I-64 and U.S. 60) and the  James River Bridge (U.S. 17 and U.S. 258) were originally toll crossings.  The MMMBT (I-664) was always "free" to cross.
All of them are expensive to maintain and require constant monitoring and patrol for obvious reasons. 
If people in the area want more highway capacity across the Hampton Roads, they have three choices:
(1) Get the Virginia General Assembly to approve another (large) increase in motor fuel taxes to fund the construction of more capacity;
(2) Go along with tolling; or
(3) Continue to deal with extensive and worsening congestion approaching the crossings.
There's no "free" opinion available.

(4) They could extend I-564 to I-664 for $4 billion and have a whole new 4-lane bridge-tunnel which could exploit the much lower traffic volumes on I-664 in both directions, between Norfolk and Newport News, and between Norfolk and Suffolk.  It would also serve as an uptown crossing of the Elizabeth River and provide more capacity beyond that of the existing two Elizabeth River tunnels.  It would also complete a South Hampton Roads Beltway.  It could be tolled.

Could that $4 billion purchase four (not 2) added lanes of capacity across Hampton Roads at the HRBT?

[Beltway]

They could extend I-564 to I-664 for $4 billion and have a whole new 4-lane bridge-tunnel which could exploit the much lower traffic volumes on I-664 in both directions, between Norfolk and Newport News, and between Norfolk and Suffolk.  It would also serve as an uptown crossing of the Elizabeth River and provide more capacity beyond that of the existing two Elizabeth River tunnels.  It would also complete a South Hampton Roads Beltway.  It could be tolled.

Could that $4 billion purchase four (not 2) added lanes of capacity across Hampton Roads at the HRBT?

No.  They have not estimated the cost of widening to 8 lanes the 10 miles of I-64 approaches in Hampton and Norfolk between I-664 and I-564.

[froggie]

Despite appearances, the MMBT is not as "clear sailing" as it used to be.  And it wouldn't take much coming from the proposed "Patriots Crossing" to put it at a level rivaling that of the HRBT.  There's currently (per VDOT 2016 volumes) about a 26,000 vpd difference between the MMBT and HRBT.  That's less than half of what they're projecting for the Patriots Crossing (forecasting roughly 78K in "2018" per the project's 2012 traffic technical report.  By the numbers of that same traffic technical report, the Patriots Crossing would trade today's HRBT mess for an even worse MMBT mess (roughly 20K vpd more than today's HRBT).

In short, the Patriots Crossing won't work without a corresponding widening of the MMBT.

[Beltway]

Despite appearances, the MMBT is not as "clear sailing" as it used to be.  And it wouldn't take much coming from the proposed "Patriots Crossing" to put it at a level rivaling that of the HRBT.  There's currently (per VDOT 2016 volumes) about a 26,000 vpd difference between the MMBT and HRBT.  That's less than half of what they're projecting for the Patriots Crossing (forecasting roughly 78K in "2018" per the project's 2012 traffic technical report.  By the numbers of that same traffic technical report, the Patriots Crossing would trade today's HRBT mess for an even worse MMBT mess (roughly 20K vpd more than today's HRBT).
In short, the Patriots Crossing won't work without a corresponding widening of the MMBT.

I don't see where this Michael Baker study has actually been validated by VDOT or the regional TA.  I wonder if this is where the current HRBT widening scheme came from??

In any event, they can't just post a number if there is nowhere for that much traffic to go.  They also make the assumption that the Craney Island Connector would be included, which would considerably boost the numbers.  I would not necessarily include that connector in the project.

The I-564 Extension could distribute traffic to both directions of I-664, as I said, between Norfolk and Newport News, and between Norfolk and Suffolk.  So just for example, 52,000 on I-564, with 26,000 to/from each side of I-664.  Major benefits from the outset, more to accrue in the future if the I-664 tunnel (I find that "Merrimac" appellation to be irritating for several reasons) and Newport News approaches is widened to 8 lanes.

The I-564 Extension proposal has some limitations.  The current HRBT widening scheme is a bad project.

[froggie]

It was validated enough to where VDOT used it in their draft 2011 Reevaluation of the previous CBA 9/Third Crossing project.