Virginia

[74/171FAN]

The Boulevard Bridge (VA 161) is still not shown as being tolled.

Really? Because I considered going there the last time I drove up north, and I'd still like to do it, and capture those toll booths.

It is still tolled, part of the RMTA that has the two tolled expressways.  I drove across it a couple weeks ago.

This is the one many locals still call the Nickel Bridge, right?

Yes, my dad still refers to it as such.

[LM117]

A little PSA for those traveling on US-58 near Danville.

(behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html

Tropical Storm Michael washed out areas along the bridges over Sandy Creek on Oct. 11. For several weeks following the deadly storm, the road was detoured while the Virginia Department of Transportation repaired one bridge.

Now, due to increased traffic and continued wet weather, an area of pavement on that road is breaking up, VDOT officials report.

Contractors will repair the surface and traffic along the stretch should reopen by Jan. 11, according to VDOT.

The temporary detour will snake through Milton, North Carolina, using Route 62 going through Milton, then Route 57 and Route 119 to return back to U.S. 58.

VDOT expects repairs currently underway to the other bridge over Sandy Creek to be complete by late February.

Is that the area that is down to 1 lane, and a speed limit of 35?

I'm not sure. I haven't been out that way in quite a while. Most of my commutes these days are in town or on NC-86 going to Durham.

[sprjus4]

A little PSA for those traveling on US-58 near Danville.

(behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html

Tropical Storm Michael washed out areas along the bridges over Sandy Creek on Oct. 11. For several weeks following the deadly storm, the road was detoured while the Virginia Department of Transportation repaired one bridge.

Now, due to increased traffic and continued wet weather, an area of pavement on that road is breaking up, VDOT officials report.

Contractors will repair the surface and traffic along the stretch should reopen by Jan. 11, according to VDOT.

The temporary detour will snake through Milton, North Carolina, using Route 62 going through Milton, then Route 57 and Route 119 to return back to U.S. 58.

VDOT expects repairs currently underway to the other bridge over Sandy Creek to be complete by late February.

Is that the area that is down to 1 lane, and a speed limit of 35?

I'm not sure. I haven't been out that way in quite a while. Most of my commutes these days are in town or on NC-86 going to Durham.

Okay, cause I just remember coming into Danville on US-58 last week, they had some massive work zone with two small bridges east of the 'developed' area near the bypass.

[LM117]

A little PSA for those traveling on US-58 near Danville.

(behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html

Tropical Storm Michael washed out areas along the bridges over Sandy Creek on Oct. 11. For several weeks following the deadly storm, the road was detoured while the Virginia Department of Transportation repaired one bridge.

Now, due to increased traffic and continued wet weather, an area of pavement on that road is breaking up, VDOT officials report.

Contractors will repair the surface and traffic along the stretch should reopen by Jan. 11, according to VDOT.

The temporary detour will snake through Milton, North Carolina, using Route 62 going through Milton, then Route 57 and Route 119 to return back to U.S. 58.

VDOT expects repairs currently underway to the other bridge over Sandy Creek to be complete by late February.

Is that the area that is down to 1 lane, and a speed limit of 35?

I'm not sure. I haven't been out that way in quite a while. Most of my commutes these days are in town or on NC-86 going to Durham.

Okay, cause I just remember coming into Danville on US-58 last week, they had some massive work zone with two small bridges east of the 'developed' area near the bypass.

Yes, now that you went into detail, that is the spot.

[VTGoose]

Tolls Pushed for I-81 Improvements

Tolls are the solution to the problems on I-81 in Virginia, per a proposal from Gov. Ralph Northam. Legislation, sponsored by Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham; Sen. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson; Del. Steve Landes, R-Augusta; and Del. Terry Austin, R-Botetourt (interesting that all are Republicans), will be introduced in the upcoming General Assembly.

Per the news release,

"The initial draft legislation would establish an Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Fund supported by tolls along I-81. The proposal would establish limits on toll rates and give automobiles and small trucks the ability to purchase an annual pass allowing unlimited use of I-81 for a fixed yearly fee. Revenues collected would only be used for improvements included in the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan that was adopted by the [Commonwealth Transportation] Board at its December meeting."

(see https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2019/january/headline-837634-en.html).

Per the Roanoke Times,

"State officials previously estimated the fee would be about $30, while tractor-trailers and other large trucks and passenger vehicles without the yearly pass would pay the toll.

"Toll rates were not specified in Northam's news release, but state highway officials have previously suggested 5 cents to 15 cents a mile depending on vehicle type and hour of day or night. Lower nighttime rates from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. were part of a proposal from the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT studied I-81 during much of 2018 before recommending a long list of new lanes, interchange projects and other fixes while leaving the choice of funding method – tolls or tax increases or some combination of both – to lawmakers."

(see https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general_assembly/governor-western-virginia-lawmakers-back-tolls-to-fix-i/article_d924cc82-f88a-52f8-bc40-2cd790d8e709.html)


The Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan can be found at www.va81corridor.org.

-----
Bruce in Blacksburg

[Beltway]

Tolls Pushed for I-81 Improvements
Tolls are the solution to the problems on I-81 in Virginia, per a proposal from Gov. Ralph Northam. Legislation, sponsored by Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham; Sen. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson; Del. Steve Landes, R-Augusta; and Del. Terry Austin, R-Botetourt (interesting that all are Republicans), will be introduced in the upcoming General Assembly.

They represent those areas that I-81 serves.  I wonder if it has been determined what mechanism would be used for instituting tolls.  The TEA-21 pilot program?  That was canceled and recycled, so they would have to reapply.  I don't think there is any other tolling mechanism for tolling all vehicles on a long-distance Interstate corridor.  I would agree for having a nominal cost pass for locals (such as living in the counties that I-81 passes thru) and having point tolls for all other vehicles.

[sprjus4]

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/01/cell-phone-ban-tolls-widening-i-95-among-2019-va-transportation-bills/

I-95 widening in the talks for study again, this time between Springfield and south of Fredericksburg (at Thornburg). They want to potentially study the possibility of adding an additional lane in each direction (6 to 8 lane widening) down to Thornburg.

IMHO, this is an extremely needed project, and I think a study should definitely happen.

[froggie]

^ I don't see it being a high priority south of Dumfries given the recent investments in extending the HO/T lanes.

[74/171FAN]

Please post all I-81 tolling replies to the following topic:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24235.0

sprjus4, your post was moved there as it is the only one that was not a duplicate.

Thanks,

Mark

[sprjus4]

^ I don't see it being a high priority south of Dumfries given the recent investments in extending the HO/T lanes.

There's heavy traffic congestion (mainly local) between Fredericksburg and D.C, not just to Dumfries. Widening to south of Fredericksburg is a high priority, less so, but eventually all the way to Richmond.

[froggie]

You're missing my point.  Given the recent and ongoing investments in extending the HO/T lanes to Fredericksburg, VDOT is not going to expend the time and effort to widen significant lengths of the general lanes, no matter how much you think they're needed.  For starters, VDOT doesn't have the funding for that.  Second, any expansion of the general lanes would incur cost reimbursement to Transurban.

[sprjus4]

You're missing my point.  Given the recent and ongoing investments in extending the HO/T lanes to Fredericksburg, VDOT is not going to expend the time and effort to widen significant lengths of the general lanes, no matter how much you think they're needed.  For starters, VDOT doesn't have the funding for that.  Second, any expansion of the general lanes would incur cost reimbursement to Transurban.

Oh I understand. And the comment about they don't have funding - they're undergoing massive billion dollar expansions (I-66 outside the beltway - $2 billion, HRBT - $4 billion) and could afford it in the future. It's just not "how much I think it's needed", it's the overall fact that it is needed, it's not a personal opinion of mine, ask anybody who uses it and gets tangled in traffic every single day. I don't think you use it enough to realize the reality of it.

[froggie]

Keep in mind that both of those are heavily funded by tolls, nevermind that both Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads have regional taxes that contribute to major regional projects.

And I fully understand the situation...I lived in Fairfax County.  I don't think you realize the reality of politics or financing or the legalities of the public-private partnerships the state has used on I-95.

[Mapmikey]

Keep in mind that both of those are heavily funded by tolls, nevermind that both Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads have regional taxes that contribute to major regional projects.

And I fully understand the situation...I lived in Fairfax County.  I don't think you realize the reality of politics or financing or the legalities of the public-private partnerships the state has used on I-95.

If they follow through as expected to extend the express lanes down to Fredericksburg and they complete the VA 3-Rappahannock River-US 17 interchange expansion traffic will be a whole lot better through the area.  For me, anyway.  Of course that is still 4 years away from completion...

[Beltway]

You're missing my point.  Given the recent and ongoing investments in extending the HO/T lanes to Fredericksburg, VDOT is not going to expend the time and effort to widen significant lengths of the general lanes, no matter how much you think they're needed.  For starters, VDOT doesn't have the funding for that.  Second, any expansion of the general lanes would incur cost reimbursement to Transurban.

Not necessarily true on either point, as I have pointed out the 4th lanes could be funded as ETL (express toll but not HOV).  If they can find a feasible way to extend the 4th lanes from Woodbridge to Thornburg, I say go for it.

[sprjus4]

You're missing my point.  Given the recent and ongoing investments in extending the HO/T lanes to Fredericksburg, VDOT is not going to expend the time and effort to widen significant lengths of the general lanes, no matter how much you think they're needed.  For starters, VDOT doesn't have the funding for that.  Second, any expansion of the general lanes would incur cost reimbursement to Transurban.

Not necessarily true on either point, as I have pointed out the 4th lanes could be funded as ETL (express toll but not HOV).  If they can find a feasible way to extend the 4th lanes from Woodbridge to Thornburg, I say go for it.

If it's done as a toll exclusive lane with no HOV being exempt, I don't see a point for even doing it. The point is to add more general purpose capacity without more tolling. That combined with the HO/T lane extension and future interchange improvements along the corridor would help to bring traffic relief.

I can see now a huge backup at Thornburg with 4 lanes merging into 3 lanes once this (if it ever happens) project gets done though.

[1995hoo]

Regardless of what will or won't happen, it's true that there IS legislation pending in the House that would establish a joint subcommittee to "study the feasibility"  of widening I-95 from Thornburg (Exit 118) to Springfield. Here's the link to the LIS:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+sum+HJ580

I wouldn't expect anything to come of it for the reasons others have said. Note, also, the study would have an absurdly low budget.

[Beltway]

Not necessarily true on either point, as I have pointed out the 4th lanes could be funded as ETL (express toll but not HOV).  If they can find a feasible way to extend the 4th lanes from Woodbridge to Thornburg, I say go for it.

If it's done as a toll exclusive lane with no HOV being exempt, I don't see a point for even doing it. The point is to add more general purpose capacity without more tolling. That combined with the HO/T lane extension and future interchange improvements along the corridor would help to bring traffic relief.
I can see now a huge backup at Thornburg with 4 lanes merging into 3 lanes once this (if it ever happens) project gets done though.

A second phase would extend the 4th lanes from Thornburg to I-295 ... but first things first.

The whole point of tolling is to get something built when the road taxes won't suffice.

[sprjus4]

Not necessarily true on either point, as I have pointed out the 4th lanes could be funded as ETL (express toll but not HOV).  If they can find a feasible way to extend the 4th lanes from Woodbridge to Thornburg, I say go for it.

If it's done as a toll exclusive lane with no HOV being exempt, I don't see a point for even doing it. The point is to add more general purpose capacity without more tolling. That combined with the HO/T lane extension and future interchange improvements along the corridor would help to bring traffic relief.
I can see now a huge backup at Thornburg with 4 lanes merging into 3 lanes once this (if it ever happens) project gets done though.

A second phase would extend the 4th lanes from Thornburg to I-295 ... but first things first.

The whole point of tolling is to get something built when the road taxes won't suffice.

I'm sure a project like this would get funding within 5 years, seeing the massive expansion happening on I-66. Again, tolling the lane wouldn't accomplish much especially when there's already existing HO/T lanes.

At the rate we're going, an extension to I-295 would be nice but probably not likely anytime soon. Though, it's needed eventually and will get funded eventually.

Regardless of what will or won't happen, it's true that there IS legislation pending in the House that would establish a joint subcommittee to "study the feasibility"  of widening I-95 from Thornburg (Exit 118) to Springfield. Here's the link to the LIS:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+sum+HJ580

I wouldn't expect anything to come of it for the reasons others have said. Note, also, the study would have an absurdly low budget.

Having a full study done will make such a project more of an incentive to actually consider for funding. Right now, it's continuously an idea being floated and nothing to back it, therefore nothing has been considered or thought of about a widening.

I find it interesting how it mentions "by at least one additional lane of traffic in each direction" indicating there could be more than just one lane considered. Nice, but we'd be lucky just to get 1 lane.

[Beltway]

A second phase would extend the 4th lanes from Thornburg to I-295 ... but first things first.
The whole point of tolling is to get something built when the road taxes won't suffice.

I'm sure a project like this would get funding within 5 years, seeing the massive expansion happening on I-66. Again, tolling the lane wouldn't accomplish much especially when there's already existing HO/T lanes.

Aren't you the one who keeps complaining that the HOT lanes only go in one direction at a time?  Besides they have never been proposed to Thornburg. 

My concept would accomplish plenty, granted they would need to be dynamically priced so that they would get ample usage.

[NJRoadfan]

I can see now a huge backup at Thornburg with 4 lanes merging into 3 lanes once this (if it ever happens) project gets done though.

Traffic drops noticeably on I-95 south of Fredricksburg (at least on the epic traffic days I tend to travel on). Its usually smooth sailing to around Ashland or Doswell. Long term planning is at least being done for an eventually 4 lane widening going by the design of all the overpass reconstructions on that stretch.

[sprjus4]

A second phase would extend the 4th lanes from Thornburg to I-295 ... but first things first.
The whole point of tolling is to get something built when the road taxes won't suffice.

I'm sure a project like this would get funding within 5 years, seeing the massive expansion happening on I-66. Again, tolling the lane wouldn't accomplish much especially when there's already existing HO/T lanes.

Aren't you the one who keeps complaining that the HOT lanes only go in one direction at a time?  Besides they have never been proposed to Thornburg. 

My concept would accomplish plenty, granted they would need to be dynamically priced so that they would get ample usage.

I've not particularly complained about them only going one direction - more so the schedule of the reversal. This concept could theoretically work and allow HO/T to flow both directions all times w/ more capacity for the peak direction, though there needs to be a minimum of 4 GP lanes in each direction before any new toll lane ideas are pushed. A concept could be to build 2 lanes in each direction, with the inner one being HO/T, providing 4 GP + 1-3 HO/T lanes in each direction at all times, a total of 12 lanes. That would provide additional capacity in each direction and at the same time VDOT could manage the single HO/T lane and use revenues from that to pay back construction of both the new GP and HO/T lane.

Such a project would add new HO/T capacity, new GP capacity, and still be paid for by toll revenue like you suggested. The only problem would be that the HO/T lane wouldn't be able to extend beyond the Occoquan River, unless some major construction were to happen north of there, which would have to be all to the outside, which in many cases would involve constructing wider overpasses, reconfiguring interchanges, etc. Even just one new lane south of the Occoquan being a HO/T lane like you proposed would have to continue as a 5th lane up to I-395 / I-495 to provide a continuous system.

[Beltway]

I've not particularly complained about them only going one direction - more so the schedule of the reversal. This concept could theoretically work and allow HO/T to flow both directions all times w/ more capacity for the peak direction, though there needs to be a minimum of 4 GP lanes in each direction before any new toll lane ideas are pushed. A concept could be to build 2 lanes in each direction, with the inner one being HO/T, providing 4 GP + 1-3 HO/T lanes in each direction at all times, a total of 12 lanes. That would provide additional capacity in each direction and at the same time VDOT could manage the single HO/T lane and use revenues from that to pay back construction of both the new GP and HO/T lane.
Such a project would add new HO/T capacity, new GP capacity, and still be paid for by toll revenue like you suggested. The only problem would be that the HO/T lane wouldn't be able to extend beyond the Occoquan River, unless some major construction were to happen north of there, which would have to be all to the outside, which in many cases would involve constructing wider overpasses, reconfiguring interchanges, etc. Even just one new lane south of the Occoquan being a HO/T lane like you proposed would have to continue as a 5th lane up to I-395 / I-495 to provide a continuous system.

I wasn't proposing HOT, but ETL meaning dynamically tolled and with no occupancy threshold.  The 2- and 3-lane C-D roadways will extend to south of VA-3 and may obviate the need to extend the reversible roadway south of US-17.  The NB C-D project is scheduled to begin in 2020, BTW.  They might consider future extending the C-D roadways to south of US-1 Massaponax.

I haven't seen any news release from VDOT or CTB about possible Transurban compensation for 4th lane widening; just a couple newspaper articles.  IOW it is entirely possible that there won't be any needed, not surprising given the very high traffic demand on the corridor that will continue to grow.

[froggie]

^ One would hope it wouldn't incur a compensation scenario...but that would have to be addressed before any such 4th lane project could be pursued.

Though if you had Transurban build the ETL and receive the tolls from it, moot point.  Is that what you had in mind?

[Beltway]

^ One would hope it wouldn't incur a compensation scenario...but that would have to be addressed before any such 4th lane project could be pursued.
Though if you had Transurban build the ETL and receive the tolls from it, moot point.  Is that what you had in mind?

Yes, as one of the study alternatives.  Or VDOT could build it and then determine what portion of the tolls might be justified to compensate Transurban.