Virginia

[sprjus4]

Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".


I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.

Here you go...the official VDOT response to the Occoquan Supervisor's request, which was linked in Johnny Newspaper's article. 

No, you see, that letter is fake and was drafted by the Johnny Newspaper article 

[Jmiles32]

Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".


I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.

Here you go...the official VDOT response to the Occoquan Supervisor's request, which was linked in Johnny Newspaper's article. 

However, IMO it appears the rejection isn't so much that there would be a compensation event, it's that at the time of submittal they didn't have enough information to know how much $ that would add to the cost of the project and therefore could not be accurately scored.

Yes and the reason they didn't know how much the compensation event would add to the already expensive project is that under the terms of the original contract, the concessionaire  (Transurban) reserves the right for:
 Collecting tolls for the length of the operating period
 Receiving payment under certain termination events
 Developing project enhancements
 Delay events
 Compensation events
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2011/dec/pres/95PP_CTB_Major_Business_Terms_Presentation.pdf

It also important to note that since the proposed project was screened out, no further progress in regards to finding out how much exactly this compensation event would cost has been made. I encourage anyone who disagrees with my take on this issue to attend one of the many upcoming public input and hearing meetings regarding the recently state launched I-95 corridor study. If there is one held near my neck of the woods then you can bet I will try and attend.

[Jmiles32]

If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract. Since both options are obviously extremely expensive, VA's best bang for buck would be to immediately start focusing on widening I-95 to 8-lanes from Fredericksburg south to I-295. Also if state's contract for the impending 10-mile I-95 HOT lanes southern extension is for some reason different than that of the current one, then it is possible this 8-lane expansion could go as far north as Garrisonville. From Garrisonville to Woodbridge, the state's primary focus should either be widening the HOT lanes themselves to 3-lanes, 6-laneing US-1, or both.

That would be a horrible option. I-95 south of Fredericksburg has less traffic than north of Fredericksburg, and would be the last segment to be widened. That stretch mainly does fine traffic wise, except recurring congestion still can occur, especially on peak weekends. The segment north has way worse congestion that would be the top priority.

If you widened north of Fredericksburg and dropped from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville as the volumes are increasing, that's how you create a whole new backup on it's own (see the Occoquan River choke point VDOT created when the 8-laned north of there)

It would be interesting to see the HO/T lanes widened to handle more traffic and to reduce congestion, but that would be the opposite of what Transurban wants. Currently, we see frequent $15 - $20 tolls because if it's any cheaper, the lanes would choke up. If you have 3 lanes now, $15 - $20 tolls wouldn't be able to fill the lanes to capacity. In order to fill up this new capacity, you'd need lower tolls which results in less money for Transurban.

Also, VDOT shouldn't prioritize widening the HO/T lanes over the GP lanes. The HO/T lanes don't choke up. The GP lanes do. GP lane widening, interchange expansion / reconfigurations, etc. should be the top priority.

A valid argument. I'm assuming that until I see sufficient evidence that proves I-95 north of Garrisonville can be widened realistically without too much compensation or financial loss, the current priority should be either near Richmond where there are frequent backups resulting from lane drop north of Sliding Hill Road or immediately south of where the future Rappahannock river crossing project will end. While I agree that dropping from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville would result in a new choke point, it is nevertheless still being discussed by Stafford Transportation planners. Hope you don't mind another Johnny Newspaper article:
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/will-express-lanes-block-other-improvements-on-interstate-in-stafford/article_9fea40b3-d073-5b92-99f8-7ebed1c7d465.html

A few years from now, Interstate 95 will be transformed through the Fredericksburg area with the extension of the express lanes and the construction of the two mammoth Rappahannock River crossing projects.

Those projects are expected to help improve traffic flow through the corridor.

But transportation planners say it's likely the interstate will eventually still need more general purpose lanes. The widening could come in the form of a new fourth lane in each direction between the State Route 610 exit in North Stafford to U.S. 17, by converting the inside shoulder to a new lane.

But one of the congestion fixes could stand in the way of those fourth lanes ever being added.

The express lanes extension, from the current North Stafford merge to the area of U.S. 17, could include a clause that requires "competition compensation"  for any transportation projects that impact the electronically tolled lanes. The same clause was part of the agreement between the state and Transurban for the express lanes, which opened in late 2014.

In that vein, the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will send a letter to the state asking to allow those lanes to be added without restrictions that could be part of the agreement between Virginia and Transurban for the express lanes extension.

FAMPO Administrator Paul Agnello said in an interview this week that there are no plans to add the fourth lanes in the near term, but eventually that would be the plan.

Regarding interchange expansion/reconfigurations, that would probably be ok. What interchanges do you think would need this north of Fredricksburg? I believe there are currently plans to add a northbound flyover ramp at the Fairfax County Parkway(Exit 166) but that's all I know of so far.

[Beltway]

Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".
I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.

Here you go...the official VDOT response to the Occoquan Supervisor's request, which was linked in Johnny Newspaper's article. 

No, you see, that letter is fake and was drafted by the Johnny Newspaper article 

Several concerns:  A district administrator is not really at the level of someone who should issue an official response on such a matter, probably should be at the level of the Commissioner or the CTB itself.  That is a stand-alone letter pdf stored on a private website -- I would want to know what other letters were produced on both sides of that discussion to get the overall discussion.  Thirdly, a Google search on the project only finds a handful of articles, there is hardly any information out there.

[sprjus4]

A valid argument. I'm assuming that until I see sufficient evidence that proves I-95 north of Garrisonville can be widened realistically without too much compensation or financial loss, the current priority should be either near Richmond where there are frequent backups resulting from lane drop north of Sliding Hill Road or immediately south of where the future Rappahannock river crossing project will end. While I agree that dropping from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville would result in a new choke point, it is nevertheless still being discussed by Stafford Transportation planners. Hope you don't mind another Johnny Newspaper article:
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/will-express-lanes-block-other-improvements-on-interstate-in-stafford/article_9fea40b3-d073-5b92-99f8-7ebed1c7d465.html

Regarding interchange expansion/reconfigurations, that would probably be ok. What interchanges do you think would need this north of Fredricksburg? I believe there are currently plans to add a northbound flyover ramp at the Fairfax County Parkway(Exit 166) but that's all I know of so far.

I could be wrong, but it appears those lanes are simply converting the outside shoulder in an auxiliary lane. Granted it will help, but it is not a full interstate widening.

A massive project which is needed would construct an entire new inner lane, resulting in 4 GP lanes in each direction. Between exits, having a 5th auxiliary lane, what the current "widening" projects will do, will also be apart of that.

This project is a good start though, knocking the easier auxiliary lanes out first. Then, a 30 mile expansion to 6 lanes, likely $1.5 billion ($50 million per mile), is needed as a larger project.

As for interchange reconfigurations / expansions, I don't know any off the top of my head, though each interchange and surrounding area should be studied and evaluated to determine if reconfiguring lanes, adding turn lanes, adding new ramps, flyovers, etc. would help traffic flow getting on / off the highway, etc. and in turn, possibly have a positive impact to the overall flow of I-95 traffic. The current I-66 Outside the Beltway widening under construction is reconstructing many interchanges, converting some into diverging diamonds, adding a few flyovers, etc. all in hopes that traffic will flow better and to add capacity. The same should be considered with each I-95 interchange. The SR-630 Courthouse Rd (Exit 140) interchange is being reconfigured into a DDI as apart of the widening project. It was determined that a conventional diamond interchange has less capacity, and a DDI would better serve traffic needs. The pattern of development in some areas, and the additional traffic could be overloading some of these interchanges, and they may need to be reconstructed to meet demands.

[Jmiles32]

A valid argument. I'm assuming that until I see sufficient evidence that proves I-95 north of Garrisonville can be widened realistically without too much compensation or financial loss, the current priority should be either near Richmond where there are frequent backups resulting from lane drop north of Sliding Hill Road or immediately south of where the future Rappahannock river crossing project will end. While I agree that dropping from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville would result in a new choke point, it is nevertheless still being discussed by Stafford Transportation planners. Hope you don't mind another Johnny Newspaper article:
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/will-express-lanes-block-other-improvements-on-interstate-in-stafford/article_9fea40b3-d073-5b92-99f8-7ebed1c7d465.html

Regarding interchange expansion/reconfigurations, that would probably be ok. What interchanges do you think would need this north of Fredricksburg? I believe there are currently plans to add a northbound flyover ramp at the Fairfax County Parkway(Exit 166) but that's all I know of so far.

I could be wrong, but it appears those lanes are simply converting the outside shoulder in an auxiliary lane. Granted it will help, but it is not a full interstate widening.

A massive project which is needed would construct an entire new inner lane, resulting in 4 GP lanes in each direction. Between exits, having a 5th auxiliary lane, what the current "widening" projects will do, will also be apart of that.

This project is a good start though, knocking the easier auxiliary lanes out first. Then, a 30 mile expansion to 6 lanes, likely $1.5 billion ($50 million per mile), is needed as a larger project.

And yet the impression I got after the deal to add a southbound auxiliarily lane from the VA-123 on-ramp to the Prince William Parkway off-ramp is that both sides ( the state and Transurban) still can't seem to agree on whether or not an auxiliary lane constitutes a compensation event (still mad that at the very least a northbound auxiliarily lane within the same area was not also included in the deal). Only reason the deal even happened IMO was because Transurban is now allowed to build a new HOT lanes exit at Opitz Blvd. So I would think that constructing various auxiliary lanes throughout the entire corridor unfortunately won't be a very easy task either.

As for interchange reconfigurations / expansions, I don't know any off the top of my head, though each interchange and surrounding area should be studied and evaluated to determine if reconfiguring lanes, adding turn lanes, adding new ramps, flyovers, etc. would help traffic flow getting on / off the highway, etc. and in turn, possibly have a positive impact to the overall flow of I-95 traffic. The current I-66 Outside the Beltway widening under construction is reconstructing many interchanges, converting some into diverging diamonds, adding a few flyovers, etc. all in hopes that traffic will flow better and to add capacity. The same should be considered with each I-95 interchange. The SR-630 Courthouse Rd (Exit 140) interchange is being reconfigured into a DDI as apart of the widening project. It was determined that a conventional diamond interchange has less capacity, and a DDI would better serve traffic needs. The pattern of development in some areas, and the additional traffic could be overloading some of these interchanges, and they may need to be reconstructed to meet demands.

One potential interchange project that comes to mind would be maybe adding a flyover ramp from Eastbound Prince William Parkway to Northbound I-95.

[sprjus4]

One potential interchange project that comes to mind would be maybe adding a flyover ramp from Eastbound Prince William Parkway to Northbound I-95.

Even better -see below-. Only problem would be cost... but that's what would be built into an I-95 reconstruction & widening project. The ability to handle traffic for decades to come. Look at the I-95 / I-495 / I-395 interchange and the surrounding roadways. Similar concepts. Probably around $1.5 billion for base widening, and another $500 - $700 or more million for other improvements for the 30 miles between the Occoquan River and Fredericksburg.

[Jmiles32]

One potential interchange project that comes to mind would be maybe adding a flyover ramp from Eastbound Prince William Parkway to Northbound I-95.

Even better -see below-. Only problem would be cost... but that's what would be built into an I-95 reconstruction & widening project. The ability to handle traffic for decades to come. Look at the I-95 / I-495 / I-395 interchange and the surrounding roadways. Similar concepts. Probably around $1.5 billion for base widening, and another $500 - $700 or more million for other improvements for the 30 miles between the Occoquan River and Fredericksburg.

Nice! Yeah if there was funding I would to see something like this.

[1995hoo]

I'd like it if they found a way to connect the HO/T lanes directly to the Parkway, without the need for going through the slug lot, though configuring it to avoid yet another annoying traffic light would be no simple cheap matter. Of course I know that's the busiest slug lot of all.

[sprjus4]

I'd like it if they found a way to connect the HO/T lanes directly to the Parkway, without the need for going through the slug lot, though configuring it to avoid yet another annoying traffic light would be no simple cheap matter. Of course I know that's the busiest slug lot of all.

It could be done. Certainly not cheap though.

[1995hoo]

Northbound Route 29 in the Buckland area of Fauquier County is to be closed this summer to level out some hills on the approach to Vint Hill Road (VA-215) because there have been an inordinate number of crashes there.

[famartin]

Northbound Route 29 in the Buckland area of Fauquier County is to be closed this summer to level out some hills on the approach to Vint Hill Road (VA-215) because there have been an inordinate number of crashes there.

A long time coming.

[sprjus4]

I don't know when this occurred, but the speed limit between the Courtland and Franklin bypasses on US-58 has been lowered from 55 MPH to 50 MPH permanently. When I drove it last November, it was still at 55 MPH, though today, it was down to 50 MPH. Also noticed a significant increase in police patrolling the highway.

A VDOT report last year indicated that if it were not for the signal and businesses, it would be recommended for 60 MPH, though said a 55 MPH limit was appropriate. It appears to be a local decision to lower the limit, I would go out on a limb and say as a police trap, though who knows. It's certainly designed for 55 MPH, and there's no justification as to why it needs to be 50 MPH. Like I said, a VDOT speed study indicated 55 MPH was appropriate, and could almost handle 60 MPH.

UPDATE ----
The study, conducted 7/6/15, indicated the following -

"Based on the information contained in this report, Traffic Engineering does not recommend a change in the statutory 55mph speed limit. While the 85th percentile speed and low crash rate would seem to indicate that increasing the speed limit to 60 mph is warranted, this is offset by the number and spacing of commercial entrances in this segment"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Lxi7NhsUf5gJ:www.southamptoncounty.org/MediaArchive/PDF/BOS%2520AGENDA%2520-%2520MAY%25202017/No.%252011%2520-%2520Planning%2520Commission%2520Recommendation%2520-%2520Speed%2520Limit%2520Reduction%2520-%2520U.S.%2520Route%252058.pdf+&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Beltway]

Two years of citizen and official pressure to lower the speed limit for what they think are safety reasons.  This is the reason for this kind of decision in other places as well.

"At its May 11, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission resolved to request the Board of Supervisors to pursue a reduction in the statutory speed limit on that certain section of Southampton Parkway between Jerusalem Road and Camp Parkway.  A copy of their recommendation is attached."
. . . . .

"At their regular April 13, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission heard from several citizens during the public comment period requesting their attention to the issue of excessive speed along US 58 in the Food Lion/Dairy Queen area.  It was requested by the citizens that the Planning Commission members sign a petition that is to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation by local citizens making the request that for the sake of safety and economic development and continued viability, the speed limit along US 58 in that area be reduced from the posted 55 MPH to a posted 45 MPH."
. . . . .

Based on curvature, shoulder widths and lane widths, this is not a high quality 4-lane highway.  Numbers of adjacent businesses and driveways as well.

[74/171FAN]

Two years of citizen and official pressure to lower the speed limit for what they think are safety reasons.  This is the reason for this kind of decision in other places as well.

I will say that this portion of US 58 is probably more justifable being 50 than US 460 between New Bohemia and Disputanta.  The big difference is that the latter is still 98% 4-lane undivided between Petersburg and Suffolk.

[Beltway]

Two years of citizen and official pressure to lower the speed limit for what they think are safety reasons.  This is the reason for this kind of decision in other places as well.

I will say that this portion of US 58 is probably more justifable being 50 than US 460 between New Bohemia and Disputanta.  The big difference is that the latter is still 98% 4-lane undivided between Petersburg and Suffolk.

Similar issues and public feedback --

"PRINCE GEORGE, VA (WWBT) - Changes are being recommended on what many consider a dangerous stretch of roadway.
Route 460, between Bull Hill Road and Hines Road in Prince George, has been the scene of several deadly accidents.  Now, a new study highlights problems and possible solutions to increase safety."

[froggie]

Clearly VDOT concurred with the Board of Supervisors if the speed limit was dropped to 50.  As I understand state law regarding speed limits, county boards can request speed limit changes, but it requires VDOT concurrence and a traffic/engineering/safety study to actually happen on VDOT-maintained roads (which US 58 there obviously is).

Scott's right, though.  You have a lot of driveways, substandard shoulders, and the traffic signal near Food Lion on that short stretch, so 50 does not surprise me.  The traffic signal alone would even warrant a brief reduction to 45 MPH given typical VDOT precedent elsewhere.

[sprjus4]

I understand the reasoning for the speed drops, and in theory it sounds good. But the reality is, nobody obeys this new speed limit. I set my cruise to 50 MPH just to see how many people would pass me, and at least 6 people tailgated me for a while, then quickly flew past on the left doing 60+.

There's now a larger gap between the speed limit and the 85th percentile speed, which creates safety hazards itself.

At least it's only 50 MPH though. It would be worse if they had gotten the 45 MPH they wanted.

[plain]

Uuuugggghh I hate that news. US 58 needs to be at least a high speed arterial between Hampton Roads and I-85 and that new speed limit drop is not helping, though I do see why the locals have their concerns. I'm already pissed that there are now four traffic signals between Emporia and South Hill (up from 3, the newest one is roughly 5 miles east of Edgerton). There should be zero signals between the Suffolk Bypass & South Hill.

[froggie]

^ There's a long-term goal of bypassing that lower-speed-limit segment with a new-alignment connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses.

"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?

[Beltway]

There's a long-term goal of bypassing that lower-speed-limit segment with a new-alignment connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses.

That is one of several alternatives, a seamless freeway, and the best one IMHO. 

The others would upgrade the existing highway to modern lane widths and full paved shoulders and roadside widening.  One would utilize access management and the other would be an at-grade expressway with service roads where needed.

[froggie]

^ The Southampton County study I found indicated a strong preference for the bypass, though I don't recall offhand if it was THE preferred alternative.

(EDIT: )  I should add that the study was from several years ago, during the '00s.

[sprjus4]

The only issue is cost - $172,525,000 (as of 2015, likely higher now). Here's the study. It was recommended as the preferred alternative in that particular study.

As of information in August 2018, there appears to be local concerns for the bypass, though that's to be expected. Link

It'd be nice, though I couldn't see it being built anytime soon, unless HRTPO and VDOT were to go on a venture to upgrade the US-58 corridor to interstate standards to I-95 or I-85. It's simply one traffic light and some businesses. Minor inconvenience and local traffic flows compared to the high cost, I couldn't see it scoring well alone. A bypass of the congested area of US-58 just west of the Suffolk Bypass would be higher priority over this segment.

A cheaper alternative might be to convert the existing eastbound lanes into a frontage road, convert the westbound lanes into interstate-grade eastbound lanes, and construct new westbound lanes. An overpass at Storys Station Rd with frontage road connection, and an interchange at Camp Pkwy (US-58 Bus) and you could have an upgraded freeway on existing alignment. It would reduce the wetland impact where the bypass is proposed, likely reducing costs significantly.

[sprjus4]

(EDIT: )  I should add that the study was from several years ago, during the '00s.

Do you have a link to that particular study? The one I was aware of was from 2015, the one I posted above. Curious to see the differences.

[Jmiles32]

Here are VDOT's plans for the Bowers Hill Interchange:
https://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-bowers-hill-20190418-story.html

Additional lanes and barriers to separate the streams of traffic that currently weave their way through the Bowers Hill interchange are state highway officials' proposed fix for one of Hampton Roads's worst bottlenecks.

They're going to recommend that approach rather than a costlier rebuilding of most of the interchange, including new flyovers and exit ramps, Jennifer Salyers, location studies project manager at the Virginia Department of Transportation, told the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Thursday.

The recommended alternative includes new barriers to separate traffic headed to I-664 and U.S. 58 as it moves off of Interstate 264, as well as for traffic moving onto I-64 and I-264 from U.S. 58.

It calls for an additional lane in each direction of I-64 and I-664, as well as a new ramp between U.S. 58 east and I-264 east and a new two lane ramp to connect I-64 to I-264 and U.S. 58.

Slayton said this approach would cost about $450 million, or two-thirds the likely expense of rebuilding the interchange. VDOT would need to acquire only about half the right of way, or 8.8 acres, and the project would affect only about a quarter of the wetlands that would be impacted by the rebuilding. But it would require relocating 11 homes, compared to three, and three businesses, compared to none.