Rural Freeways That Need Six Lanes

[Beltway]

The left exit WB at Exit 243 is being retained in these projects, but the right side is adjacent to federal military property.  I would presume that the future outside widening will address that as well as negotiate with the US DOD to acquire the needed right-of-way, and they are hard for a state to deal with.

I don't know if the design had anything to do with the military property, as most was still done on existing R/W. The left exit was most likely retained because they did not want to severely modify the interchanges. In the future, they could raise WB I-64 over the ramp, and swing the exit around to the right side. If HOV lanes are part of the next 8-laning, then that's going to have to happen, unless they want some weird situation with traffic using the HOV lane simply to exit (I-264 to I-64 in Norfolk, a mistake).

Left hand ramps were acceptable in the 1960s when that was built.  By the 1990s they were recognized as having safety deficiencies, and should be eliminated when possible.

I have taken a good look at that on the ground as well as the Google Maps aerial, and there are definite right-of-way restrictions.  To build a right-hand ramp, they either need more right-of-way or they to build a long flyover bridge with retaining wall approaches, and that would be pretty expensive.

[sprjus4]

Kind of old (9 yrs ago), but found information of I-95 as part of the Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study done in 2010.

That was for 2030 needs.  Still a long ways off, but they need to start many years before that because they can't build it all at once.

We're 11 years from 2030, and the need is here now. It seems they've been way more focused on the HO/T lane concept rather than these ideas. Newer overpasses constructed go completely against the C/D idea, and one locality tried to get 8-laning done on their portion of I-95, but was shot down by VDOT due to compensation that would be required to Transurban. If Transurban and the HO/T lanes are going to hold I-95 to six lanes for the next 10+ years, the traffic is only going to get worse and worse. This is one of the reasons that doing these HO/T lanes under the private sector, and signing a poorly negotiated contract was a mistake. P3 has its benefits, but only when it's done correctly.

[sprjus4]

The left exit WB at Exit 243 is being retained in these projects, but the right side is adjacent to federal military property.  I would presume that the future outside widening will address that as well as negotiate with the US DOD to acquire the needed right-of-way, and they are hard for a state to deal with.

I don't know if the design had anything to do with the military property, as most was still done on existing R/W. The left exit was most likely retained because they did not want to severely modify the interchanges. In the future, they could raise WB I-64 over the ramp, and swing the exit around to the right side. If HOV lanes are part of the next 8-laning, then that's going to have to happen, unless they want some weird situation with traffic using the HOV lane simply to exit (I-264 to I-64 in Norfolk, a mistake).

Left hand ramps were acceptable in the 1960s when that was built.  By the 1990s they were recognized as having safety deficiencies, and should be eliminated when possible.

I have taken a good look at that on the ground as well as the Google Maps aerial, and there are definite right-of-way restrictions.  To build a right-hand ramp, they either need more right-of-way or they to build a long flyover bridge with retaining wall approaches, and that would be pretty expensive.

They've still have constructed left entrances & exits beyond 1990, one example I can think of was built just a couple years ago, at I-73 & NC 68 north of Greensboro, NC. Agreed, while they do have their issues, they still work fine. I don't support constructing them new (I strongly oppose the one they just built at I-73), but retaining existing ones where it won't cause too many issues can work. I would argue that left entrances are more dangerous than exits. If proper signage is used identifying it as a left exit, and it has a long enough deceleration lane that won't interrupt traffic, it can work.

If they had to rebuild it, here's a concept using all existing R/W -

[Beltway]

We're 11 years from 2030, and the need is here now. It seems they've been way more focused on the HO/T lane concept rather than these ideas. Newer overpasses constructed go completely against the C/D idea, and one locality tried to get 8-laning done on their portion of I-95, but was shot down by VDOT due to compensation that would be required to Transurban. If Transurban and the HO/T lanes are going to hold I-95 to six lanes for the next 10+ years, the traffic is only going to get worse and worse. This is one of the reasons that doing these HO/T lanes under the private sector, and signing a poorly negotiated contract was a mistake. P3 has its benefits, but only when it's done correctly.

Would you like to try to compute the cost of widening I-95 nearly all the way thru the state?  We've been over this ground before.  I've seen no evidence that any actual 8-laning proposal was rejected for the reason you say, no evidence that any kind of compensation study was performed in the first place, and no reason why 4th lanes couldn't be added as tolled express lanes themselves.

[Beltway]

They've still have constructed left entrances & exits beyond 1990, one example I can think of was built just a couple years ago, at I-73 & NC 68 north of Greensboro, NC. Agreed, while they do have their issues, they still work fine. I don't support constructing them new (I strongly oppose the one they just built at I-73), but retaining existing ones where it won't cause too many issues can work. I would argue that left entrances are more dangerous than exits. If proper signage is used identifying it as a left exit, and it has a long enough deceleration lane that won't interrupt traffic, it can work.

They all have issues, that is why highway engineers don't recommend them.  Traffic still has to go to the left lane and then slow down into the ramp.

If they had to rebuild it, here's a concept using all existing R/W -

I already considered that alternative.  There would be a major expense relocating a half mile of 3-lane westbound I-64 roadway.  There would be a lot less construction in relocating the one-lane ramp.

[sprjus4]

I already considered that alternative.  There would be a major expense relocating a half mile of 3-lane westbound I-64 roadway.  There would be a lot less construction in relocating the one-lane ramp.

The sloping used to raise the eastbound could be extended to support an westbound roadway without the use of retaining walls, if so minimal. At most, a $25 million project.

Even if you relocated the one lane ramp, you'd still have raise I-64 westbound over it because you can't (or could, but it would be tight) have a new one-lane ramp flyover I-64 then slope back down and get under I-64 eastbound.

[Beltway]

I already considered that alternative.  There would be a major expense relocating a half mile of 3-lane westbound I-64 roadway.  There would be a lot less construction in relocating the one-lane ramp.

The sloping used to raise the eastbound could be extended to support an westbound roadway without the use of retaining walls, if so minimal. At most, a $25 million project.

Should have been done in the current project if that was the ultimate plan, rather than widen and rebuild the existing roadway.

Even if you relocated the one lane ramp, you'd still have raise I-64 westbound over it because you can't (or could, but it would be tight) have a new one-lane ramp flyover I-64 then slope back down and get under I-64 eastbound.

The ramp could pass over Busch Blvd. as well if the grade wouldn't work as is.

[sprjus4]

We're 11 years from 2030, and the need is here now. It seems they've been way more focused on the HO/T lane concept rather than these ideas. Newer overpasses constructed go completely against the C/D idea, and one locality tried to get 8-laning done on their portion of I-95, but was shot down by VDOT due to compensation that would be required to Transurban. If Transurban and the HO/T lanes are going to hold I-95 to six lanes for the next 10+ years, the traffic is only going to get worse and worse. This is one of the reasons that doing these HO/T lanes under the private sector, and signing a poorly negotiated contract was a mistake. P3 has its benefits, but only when it's done correctly.

Would you like to try to compute the cost of widening I-95 nearly all the way thru the state?  We've been over this ground before.  I've seen no evidence that any actual 8-laning proposal was rejected for the reason you say, no evidence that any kind of compensation study was performed in the first place, and no reason why 4th lanes couldn't be added as tolled express lanes themselves.

For straight-up 8-laning from US-1 to I-295, I'd estimate $3-5 billion. For a C/D road from US-1 to Fredericksburg, then 8 lanes the rest, $5-8 billion. No reason a project like this couldn't be done in phases. The segment from DC to Fredericksburg should be the highest priority. And for high costs, a road as badly congested as this can warrant using that money. Look at I-66 outside the beltway, $2 billion there, and I-64 at the HRBT, almost $4 billion there. Doing a multi-billion dollar project for I-95 can be justified with its benefits.

As for tolling any new capacity, we clearly can see by the reversible HO/T lanes that there's already new tolled capacity, and there's still massive congestion on I-95. New free lanes, and managing them properly (local, thru, etc.) along with reconfiguring interchanges will help significantly, but simply tolling specific lanes will divert traffic to stay in the free ones. The only additional tolling I would support on I-95 would be to parallel the existing HO/T lanes to have 2 in each direction. There's a lot of times where there is congestion in both directions, but only one gets some option to avoid it.

The eight lane project has been shot down due to compensation and lack of project scope. Even if a scope was given, likely it would still be shot because costs to reimburse. -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-virginia-finally-address-the-mess-on-i-95-at-the-occoquan-river/2018/02/02/2daa90a4-0540-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.0a5daa9658ca

In the previous statewide Smart Scale funding round, Prince William County submitted an application to widen I-95 in both directions in the county, but the project was rejected because of a lack of project scope and the unknown cost related to a potential "compensation event" in the toll project comprehensive agreement. This agreement pays the toll concessionaire for lost revenue when "additional lanes" are added to I-95 in Fairfax, Prince William and part of Stafford County.

[sprjus4]

Should have been done in the current project if that was the ultimate plan, rather than widen and rebuild the existing roadway.

The issue is this was an "immediate relief" project, meaning no interchanges, bridges, etc. would be reconfigured or allow for future expansion. It was poorly planned out in regards like this, and if the left exit is to become a right one in the future, this would be the cheapest way to go about it, by relocating a portion of I-64 by extending the existing grade to support it.

[Beltway]

For straight-up 8-laning from US-1 to I-295, I'd estimate $3-5 billion. For a C/D road from US-1 to Fredericksburg, then 8 lanes the rest, $5-8 billion. No reason a project like this couldn't be done in phases. The segment from DC to Fredericksburg should be the highest priority. And for high costs, a road as badly congested as this can warrant using that money. Look at I-66 outside the beltway, $2 billion there, and I-64 at the HRBT, almost $4 billion there. Doing a multi-billion dollar project for I-95 can be justified with its benefits.

Let's see... I-95 has already had 101 miles of Interstate widening, one section widened more than once, another now under construction (Fredericksburg).  The 37 miles of I-95 Richmond-Petersburg has been bypassed by an Interstate outer loop, and 22 miles of that part of I-95 was widened in the above.

So you are proposing $8 to 13 billion in I-95 widenings. 

What about I-81 and how little of that percentagewise has been widened?  What about I-64 between Bottoms Bridge and Williamsburg that has never been widened? 

All these projects have to compete with many other projects statewide.

In the previous statewide Smart Scale funding round, Prince William County submitted an application to widen I-95 in both directions in the county, but the project was rejected because of a lack of project scope and the unknown cost related to a potential "compensation event" in the toll project comprehensive agreement. This agreement pays the toll concessionaire for lost revenue when "additional lanes" are added to I-95 in Fairfax, Prince William and part of Stafford County.

The project is still active --

As part of the agreement, the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing will be built and $232 million will be allocated to I-95 corridor improvements.

This $232 million provides an opportunity for Virginia to work with the I-95 Express Lane concessionaire to study, design and implement a solution for I-95 between Prince William Parkway and U.S. 1 in both directions that benefits both parties. As a start, VDOT and Prince William County have submitted a project for inclusion into the Council of Governments' long-range plan to add an auxiliary lane to southbound I-95 between Route 123 and Prince William Parkway.

[Beltway]

Should have been done in the current project if that was the ultimate plan, rather than widen and rebuild the existing roadway.

The issue is this was an "immediate relief" project, meaning no interchanges, bridges, etc. would be reconfigured or allow for future expansion.

The widening was on the inside, meaning that a second phase would address the outside and any needed interchange upgrades.  Mainline bridges would be widened on the outside where needed.

It was poorly planned out in regards like this, and if the left exit is to become a right one in the future, this would be the cheapest way to go about it, by relocating a portion of I-64 by extending the existing grade to support it.

With all due respect, neither of us has enough data to make an engineering determination about what you say.  I have worked in freeway design before, and I would have to work up a detailed design of each alternative and an detailed cost estimate, before making such a recommendation.  Probably at least 40 hours of work starting with the design plans, and I have not done that.

[1995hoo]

VDOT has a project underway to do a "Local/Thru" configuration similar to the Wilson Bridge from just north of Exit 133 (US-17 at Falmouth) to south of Exit 130 (VA-3). I don't recall whether it's to be that way in both directions or southbound only. It'll be interesting to see how the northern end ties into the new southern end of the HO/T lanes.

[sprjus4]

Let's see... I-95 has already had 98 miles of Interstate widening, one section widened more than once, another now under construction (Fredericksburg).  The 43 miles of I-95 Richmond-Petersburg has been bypassed by an Interstate outer loop.

So you are proposing $8 to 13 billion in I-95 widenings. 

What about I-81 and how little of that percentagewise has been widened?  What about I-64 between Bottoms Bridge and Williamsburg that has never been widened? 

All these projects have to compete with many other projects statewide.

The difference between those projects and this are that those, while needed, are not as needed as a I-95 overhaul. As I mentioned, it could be done in phases as well. 8-laning down to Fredericksburg would likely cost $1-2 billion, which is more reasonable. C/D lanes down to Fredericksburg could be closer to $3-4 billion.

The project is still active --

As part of the agreement, the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing will be built and $232 million will be allocated to I-95 corridor improvements.
This $232 million provides an opportunity for Virginia to work with the I-95 Express Lane concessionaire to study, design and implement a solution for I-95 between Prince William Parkway and U.S. 1 in both directions that benefits both parties. As a start, VDOT and Prince William County have submitted a project for inclusion into the Council of Governments' long-range plan to add an auxiliary lane to southbound I-95 between Route 123 and Prince William Parkway.

The auxiliary lane is a "start". Another article shows VDOT rejected 7 miles down to Route 234 because of the same issue. https://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/

Officials in Prince William said they've long asked the state to widen the road to four travel lanes on the north and southbound sides through nearly the entire stretch of I-95 in Prince William County, from Occoquan to Dumfries.

Instead, the I-95 E-ZPass Express Lanes were built. Toll lanes in the center of the highway that regularly charge as much as $16 one way, and allows vehicles with three or more occupants to ride free.

In a response, the CTB noted it wouldn't even consider the project because of the negative impacts it could have to the Express Lanes.

"As a result of this review, it has been determined that...[widening] I-95 from Occoquan River bridge to Route 234 is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes..."  the letter stated.

The state's new Smart Scale process requires state transportation planners place every proposed transportation project under heavy scrutiny before any funds are awarded. The fact that the state could be forced to pay Transurban, the Austrailian company that operates the Express Lanes for the next 70 years, was enough for it shut down the widening idea, with the letter stating "this project will not proceed to the next step in the evaluation process."

If they are actually allowed to use the $232 million, hopefully they could indeed widen this stretch to 8 lanes.

[sprjus4]

The widening was on the inside, meaning that a second phase would address the outside and any needed interchange upgrades.  Mainline bridges would be widened on the outside where needed.

Exactly, hense an interchange upgrade happening in Phase 2, to reconfigure the ramp and I-64 mainline.

With all due respect, neither of us has enough data to make an engineering determination about what you say.  I have worked in freeway design before, and I would have to work up a detailed design of each alternative and an detailed cost estimate, before making such a recommendation.  Probably at least 40 hours of work starting with the design plans, and I have not done that.

The $25 million figure is just a pure estimate, nothing in detail. Figure you're raising the roadway for 1/2 mile and constructing one small overpass, $25-30 million is a pure estimate judging by the minimal work occurring.

[sprjus4]

VDOT has a project underway to do a "Local/Thru" configuration similar to the Wilson Bridge from just north of Exit 133 (US-17 at Falmouth) to south of Exit 130 (VA-3). I don't recall whether it's to be that way in both directions or southbound only. It'll be interesting to see how the northern end ties into the new southern end of the HO/T lanes.

I'm aware, and this should significantly help. It's currently only southbound, but the HO/T extension is funding the northbound crossing. Both should be operational by 2023.

Here's what the tie in & entire project is proposed to look like -

[Beltway]

All these projects have to compete with many other projects statewide.

The difference between those projects and this are that those, while needed, are not as needed as a I-95 overhaul. As I mentioned, it could be done in phases as well. 8-laning down to Fredericksburg would likely cost $1-2 billion, which is more reasonable. C/D lanes down to Fredericksburg could be closer to $3-4 billion.

The people who use I-81 and who live in the western part of the state would not agree with your view of the priorities.

Given the length and the AADTs and the large truck percentages, I would probably agree with them.

The auxiliary lane is a "start". Another article shows VDOT rejected 7 miles down to Route 234 because of the same issue. https://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/

How about a topical news release from VDOT or CTB?  I haven't seen one yet. 

Newspapers make all kinds of claims.

[Beltway]

With all due respect, neither of us has enough data to make an engineering determination about what you say.  I have worked in freeway design before, and I would have to work up a detailed design of each alternative and an detailed cost estimate, before making such a recommendation.  Probably at least 40 hours of work starting with the design plans, and I have not done that.

The $25 million figure is just a pure estimate, nothing in detail. Figure you're raising the roadway for 1/2 mile and constructing one small overpass, $25-30 million is a pure estimate judging by the minimal work occurring.

My "back of the envelope" assessment would favor the relocated ramp, but again I would have to prove it true or false via the above method.

[sprjus4]

The people who use I-81 and who live in the western part of the state would not agree with your view of the priorities.

Given the length and the AADTs and the large truck percentages, I would probably agree with them.

And those who use I-95 and live in that corridor wouldn't agree with I-81's views. A similar argument to yours as well, people that support and live near the proposed I-73 corridor in southwestern VA want their portion of the billions too. Each project has its advantages. I-95 is most important, has the most AADT, serves the most amount of local traffic, has high truck percentage volumes, followed by I-81 & I-64, then eventually to I-73. Nobody is going to like the results unless it benefits them. That's why doing a $1-2 billion project from DC to Fredericksburg should be the most prioritized, whenever it will win funding. Like said, I-66 and I-64 are getting over $6 billion exclusively for those two roads. And money does need to be allocated to I-81 widenings in places most needed as well.

[vdeane]

I-95 from Richmond to DC is quite possibly one of the most hellish segments of interstate highway in the entire country.  I-81 doesn't even come close.  It at least moved at freeway speeds both times I've been on it.  The only time I've seen I-95 move anywhere faster than stop and go was at 8 AM on a holiday.

[1995hoo]

As someone who lives near and uses I-95 in Virginia, I think I'd rather see the focus be on improving I-81. I-95 has at least six lanes from Petersburg north to Springfield, and while it does get congested and is often a frustrating drive due both to slowdowns and aggressive drivers, I find I-81 to be more annoying most of the time when I use it precisely because it's only four lanes in most places, making passing difficult, plus I-81 has fewer legitimate easy alternate routes for thru traffic in that corridor (referring to people who understand you're not required to stay on the Interstate).

[sprjus4]

As someone who lives near and uses I-95 in Virginia, I think I'd rather see the focus be on improving I-81. I-95 has at least six lanes from Petersburg north to Springfield, and while it does get congested and is often a frustrating drive due both to slowdowns and aggressive drivers, I find I-81 to be more annoying most of the time when I use it precisely because it's only four lanes in most places, making passing difficult, plus I-81 has fewer legitimate easy alternate routes for thru traffic in that corridor (referring to people who understand you're not required to stay on the Interstate).

I-95 from Richmond to DC is quite possibly one of the most hellish segments of interstate highway in the entire country.  I-81 doesn't even come close.  It at least moved at freeway speeds both times I've been on it.  The only time I've seen I-95 move anywhere faster than stop and go was at 8 AM on a holiday.

I-81 is four lanes majority, with occasional 6 lane segments, with most segments at about 40,000 AADT, some up to 50 - 60,000 AADT near urban areas. I-95 on the other hands is six lanes, with 100,000 - 200,000 AADT, the key area (Fredericksburg - Woodbridge) has between 140,000 - 200,000 AADT.

Please tell me how I-81 is more prioritized over I-95. I've driven I-81 many times, including holiday travel times, it moves at least 65 MPH, most of the time 75 - 80 MPH. Hop on I-95, especially north of Fredericksburg and you'll be moving those speeds if it's night time (even that's a stretch) or on a Sunday. Having a lane to pass the truck doing 65 MPH might be nice, but going faster than 20 MPH on I-95 would be also be nice. See the difference?

I could see funding on the overall I-81 corridor to improve safety deficiencies and improve alternate routes such as U.S. 11 to handle traffic whenever I-81 is shutdown, but it's not nearly as pressing an issue as I-95 is.

[vdeane]

As someone who lives near and uses I-95 in Virginia, I think I'd rather see the focus be on improving I-81. I-95 has at least six lanes from Petersburg north to Springfield, and while it does get congested and is often a frustrating drive due both to slowdowns and aggressive drivers, I find I-81 to be more annoying most of the time when I use it precisely because it's only four lanes in most places, making passing difficult, plus I-81 has fewer legitimate easy alternate routes for thru traffic in that corridor (referring to people who understand you're not required to stay on the Interstate).

Passing is not possible on I-95.  Traffic has to be moving faster than 0 mph for lane changes to happen.

I-81 also has US 11 parallel to it for its entire length.  But yeah, I haven't had issues with it.  Traffic moved at least 65 mph the whole way - even in the rain!  I've had more issues on the Thruway than I've had on I-81 in VA.

[froggie]

^ By that logic, I-95 has US 1 and/or US 301 parallel to it through Virginia.

And I'm with Hoo...passing's a lot easier on I-95 than it is on I-81.

[Charles2]

Ideas for Alabama:

I-65 between Prattville (north of Montgomery) and Alabaster (south of Birmingham)
I-85 between Montgomery and Auburn/Opelika
I-65 from Exit 291 (AL-91 Arkadelphia) and Decatur.  I would suggest all the way to I-565, but adding lanes to the Tennessee River bridge would be cost prohibitive.

And while not rural, I-459 between I-20/59 and Exit 6 (Bessemer/Helena)

[Beltway]

The people who use I-81 and who live in the western part of the state would not agree with your view of the priorities.
Given the length and the AADTs and the large truck percentages, I would probably agree with them.

And those who use I-95 and live in that corridor wouldn't agree with I-81's views.

That is when the state has to set priorities for allocations around the state. 

Some people always think that -their- area is the one that is being "short shrifted".

A similar argument to yours as well, people that support and live near the proposed I-73 corridor in southwestern VA want their portion of the billions too. Each project has its advantages. I-95 is most important, has the most AADT, serves the most amount of local traffic, has high truck percentage volumes, followed by I-81 & I-64, then eventually to I-73. Nobody is going to like the results unless it benefits them. That's why doing a $1-2 billion project from DC to Fredericksburg should be the most prioritized, whenever it will win funding. Like said, I-66 and I-64 are getting over $6 billion exclusively for those two roads. And money does need to be allocated to I-81 widenings in places most needed as well.

I-95 has gotten $6 billion in expansion completions and under construction since 2007 between Richmond and Oxon Hill MD.  Not to mention the widenings I listed in the 1970s thru 1990s.

I-81 has gotten little in comparison.  VA I-81 is 325 miles long and has more total VMT and more large truck VMT than VA I-95.  The VA I-81 counties have about 1 million people, so it is not some kind of wilderness.