AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program  (Read 5445 times)

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5200
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:15:33 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #125 on: June 15, 2019, 08:21:49 PM »

How and where was it shown that way and it what level of EIS?  It doesn't match what is already there to the east.  Single managed lane each way.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/64HighRiseDocuments/Alternatives_Development_Technical_Report.pdf
It was indicated in the Final Environmental Assessment - Alternatives Development Technical Report on Page 49. Two general purpose lanes and two managed lanes each way. On the bottom, it even says "HOT Lane Scenario"
Those typical sections correlate with the alternative they selected - managed lanes. They indicated in what you posted above they would choose at a later time the type of management - HO/T lanes, HOV lanes, or all lanes tolled. They have since gone with the HO/T lane alternative - meaning it would follow this typical section ultimately. Unless they change it, that's what it currently is now. I'm hoping they will use common sense and change it to 3+1 each way, but that's where it stands now.
From various Facebook and community groups I'm involved with here in the area, and from speaking to friends of mine about this project, I can say the HO/T concept is not favored in Hampton Roads, and many say they don't want this area to become like Northern Virginia. Many wanted the current Phase #1 widening to be GP only, and don't favor the current 1 lane HO/T addition. One of the reasons I support converting this current lane into a GP lane, then adding -one- HO/T lane later. The current approved typical section ultimately of 2+2 each way is highly disliked, and quite frankly doesn't make sense judging by the 3+1 each way east of VA-168.

Like I said it contradicts the 3+1 each way east of VA-168, it doesn't make any sense unless that gets changed to the same 2+2 arrangement, and the CTB resolution was in 2015 which is after the above report was published, where it said, "with a decision as to the management option to be made at a later date".

Has there been any official decision or even proposal to ultimately change the 3+1 each way east of VA-168 to 2+2?
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2041
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:57:40 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #126 on: June 15, 2019, 08:28:55 PM »

Like I said it contradicts the 3+1 each way east of VA-168
100% agree

and the CTB resolution was in 2015 which is after the above report was published, where it said, "with a decision as to the management option to be made at a later date".
That was referring to the type of management, there were 3 options - HOV, HO/T, or toll all lanes. They ultimately went with HO/T lanes, as seen by this project which started in 2018, which the ultimate 8-lane build section for HO/T lanes are 2+2.

Has there been any official decision or even proposal to ultimately change the 3+1 each way east of VA-168 to 2+2?
No, the only proposal east of VA-168 was to convert the -one- HOV lane into -one- HO/T lane, and still leave 3 GP lanes. And if they ever wanted to make it 2+2 east of VA-168, that would be a mistake traffic wise. 100,000+ AADT use that stretch, shrinking it down to 2 general purpose lanes each way would not go well. There's already problems when it goes from 3 GP to 2 GP lanes currently going towards the High Rise Bridge, and the whole High Rise Bridge corridor is nothing but stop and go during rush hour. That's also why I think there should be 3 GP lanes going that way, and only 1 HO/T. And initially, only 1 GP lane then 1 HO/T later.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5200
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:15:33 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #127 on: June 15, 2019, 08:41:55 PM »

Has there been any official decision or even proposal to ultimately change the 3+1 each way east of VA-168 to 2+2?
No, the only proposal east of VA-168 was to convert the -one- HOV lane into -one- HO/T lane, and still leave 3 GP lanes. And if they ever wanted to make it 2+2 east of VA-168, that would be a mistake traffic wise. 100,000+ AADT use that stretch, shrinking it down to 2 general purpose lanes each way would not go well. There's already problems when it goes from 3 GP to 2 GP lanes currently going towards the High Rise Bridge, and the whole High Rise Bridge corridor is nothing but stop and go during rush hour. That's also why I think there should be 3 GP lanes going that way, and only 1 HO/T. And initially, only 1 GP lane then 1 HO/T later.

Then I don't see how they can follow through with what is in the 2014 report.  I can't see any traffic engineering justification for going from 3+1 to 2+2 at that place, it would either be 3+1 the whole way or 2+2 the whole way (between the two I-264 interchanges).

Based on the public reaction to changing a GP lane to a HOV lane on the Dulles Toll Road in the 1990s, I don't think that VDOT will ever try that again.  They added a GP lane each way, then a year later changed that to HOV, then a year later changed it back to GP.  It wasn't until they added the 4th lane that they made that HOV from the inception.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2041
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:57:40 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #128 on: June 15, 2019, 08:46:34 PM »

Then I don't see how they can follow through with what is in the 2014 report.  I can't see any traffic engineering justification for going from 3+1 to 2+2 at that place, it would either be 3+1 the whole way or 2+2 the whole way (between the two I-264 interchanges).
It really makes no sense, I agree. 3+1 the entire way is really the only option makes sense - having 2 HO/T lanes is not justified, and only having 2 GP lanes also isn't justified.

I wrote an email to the project manager about a year ago regarding the ultimate build and the issues it had, she informed me she would reach back with more information a week later, and nothing after that. I really wasn't expecting much though.
Based on the public reaction to changing a GP lane to a HOV lane on the Dulles Toll Road in the 1990s, I don't think that VDOT will ever try that again.  They added a GP lane each way, then a year later changed that to HOV, then a year later changed it back to GP.  It wasn't until they added the 4th lane that they made that HOV from the inception.
That's what I'm hoping will happen with the current widening - it will end up a GP lane until a HO/T lane is added later. Only time will tell.

And converting an -existing- GP lane into a HO/T lane will certainly not be welcomed, and it certainly would make traffic far worse.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2019, 08:49:00 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5200
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:15:33 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #129 on: June 16, 2019, 12:37:28 AM »

I wrote an email to the project manager about a year ago regarding the ultimate build and the issues it had, she informed me she would reach back with more information a week later, and nothing after that. I really wasn't expecting much though.

The important thing is to follow up, and not assume rejection after one cycle.  People are busy and have many tasks and may miss some.  With government agencies, be persistent.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1591
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:25:18 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #130 on: June 16, 2019, 06:08:19 PM »

Please stick to talking about the plans for I-495 and I-270.    -Mark
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 413
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: August 15, 2019, 04:44:54 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #131 on: July 25, 2019, 12:52:28 PM »

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/07/major-change-considered-for-beltway-270-toll-lanes-plan/
Quote
Maryland will consider one significantly different toll lane plan for the Capital Beltway and Interstate 270, the state disclosed Wednesday afternoon.

The Maryland Department of Transportation has agreed to conduct a more detailed review of a Montgomery County plan that recommends extending Virginia’s 495 Express Lanes over a rebuilt American Legion Bridge up I-270 to Gaithersburg, where drivers headed toward Interstate 95 would be directed onto the Intercounty Connector.

The alternative was not one considered in earlier rounds of study, where the state essentially narrowed down remaining options to some type of toll lane construction along all of I-270 and the Maryland Beltway.

Deputy Transportation Secretary Earl Lewis said Gov. Larry Hogan’s administration will conduct initial reviews over the next few weeks to see if the plan to divert traffic off the Beltway onto the ICC fits with the study’s goals.

“We are also planning public and elected official outreach in August, and this alternative will be part of that process,” Lewis said.

Using the already built ICC as part of the toll system plans would prevent any need to widen the entire Capital Beltway between I-270 and I-95, Montgomery County argues, protecting homes and parkland that are likely to be affected under the Hogan administration’s current plans.

“This connection provides a managed-lane network for the entire north side of the Capital Beltway without requiring expansion of I-495 between I-270 and I-95,” Montgomery County said in a July 11 letter to the Transportation Planning Board.

The plan does call for some upgrades on the Beltway between I-270 and I-95, such as variable speed limit signs and potential use of the shoulder for traffic at certain times.

It also includes significant changes to entice commuters to drive less by improving park-and-rides, commuter bus, MARC Train and long-promised local bus rapid transit systems that could be funded by part of the toll revenue.

Montgomery County’s proposal would also see toll lanes built in the median of I-95 from the ICC to the Beltway that would continue through Prince George’s County to near the Wilson Bridge and National Harbor.

North of Gaithersburg on I-270, there would be two reversible HOV lanes that tie in to the toll lanes in each direction from Interstate 370 to the Legion Bridge, Tysons and Springfield.

If this proposal results in both the ALB being fixed sooner and more public support then I'm all for it. However, from north of I-370 to Fredrick, I-270 needs another GP lane first. As I've stated regarding Virginia's I-64 southside and HRBT widening projects, IMO there should be at least 3 gp lanes before HOT or express lanes are constructed. 
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2041
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:57:40 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #132 on: July 25, 2019, 01:09:59 PM »

where drivers headed toward Interstate 95 would be directed onto the Intercounty Connector.

plan to divert traffic off the Beltway onto the ICC.

Using the already built ICC as part of the toll system plans would prevent any need to widen the entire Capital Beltway between I-270 and I-95, Montgomery County argues, protecting homes and parkland that are likely to be affected under the Hogan administration’s current plans.

“This connection provides a managed-lane network for the entire north side of the Capital Beltway without requiring expansion of I-495 between I-270 and I-95,"
Using the ICC is 11 miles and 11 minutes out of the way, and it wouldn't be a viable option to use that as the toll lane network IMO. There needs to be 2 toll lanes built each way on I-495 in order to be successful. If I were a toll paying customer or HOV (if they even will allow that), I'd opt to get off and just ride I-495 GP lanes. Maybe if there was a massive wreck I'd continue to ICC, but that's it. But if they are making the ICC apart of a toll lane network that allows HOV, the ICC should allow HOV 3+ free. But knowing Maryland, these lanes will be everyone pays.

As I've stated regarding Virginia's I-64 southside and HRBT widening projects, IMO there should be at least 3 gp lanes before HOT or express lanes are constructed.
Interestingly enough, the HRTPO is now evaluating a scenario where the existing HOV lanes are left in place, the small reversible HO/T segment opened last year remains in place, and all the new capacity being added to the HRBT and High Rise Bridge is general purpose instead of HO/T. It will be interesting to see the results of that in September-December. It would be nice to see if at least the High Rise Bridge corridor could be switched to GP lanes if it's determined the traffic flow will still be adequate even without HO/T lanes. We'll have to wait and see.

IMO, they're going overkill with the HO/T lane network down here. I'm just glad I-664 and US-58 hasn't been sucked into mess for those proposed widenings in the future, and hopefully these segments of I-64 currently planned for HO/T lanes will get changed based on this evaluation.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 01:12:25 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 413
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: August 15, 2019, 04:44:54 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #133 on: July 25, 2019, 02:15:35 PM »

where drivers headed toward Interstate 95 would be directed onto the Intercounty Connector.

plan to divert traffic off the Beltway onto the ICC.

Using the already built ICC as part of the toll system plans would prevent any need to widen the entire Capital Beltway between I-270 and I-95, Montgomery County argues, protecting homes and parkland that are likely to be affected under the Hogan administration’s current plans.

“This connection provides a managed-lane network for the entire north side of the Capital Beltway without requiring expansion of I-495 between I-270 and I-95,"
Using the ICC is 11 miles and 11 minutes out of the way, and it wouldn't be a viable option to use that as the toll lane network IMO. There needs to be 2 toll lanes built each way on I-495 in order to be successful. If I were a toll paying customer or HOV (if they even will allow that), I'd opt to get off and just ride I-495 GP lanes. Maybe if there was a massive wreck I'd continue to ICC, but that's it. But if they are making the ICC apart of a toll lane network that allows HOV, the ICC should allow HOV 3+ free. But knowing Maryland, these lanes will be everyone pays.

Building two express lanes on I-495 between I-270 and I-95 will be extremely disrupting to both the local community and the environment. I can also guarantee Montgomery County will find some sort of way to fight this project and likely bog it down. This is a compromise that would hopefully get this project started sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that using the ICC will be faster nor that express lanes on this stretch of the I-495 shouldn't happen. I'm just saying to focus on the more publicly favorable parts first and deal with the messy ones later. Maybe when these critics see how fast the rest of I-495 and I-270 are moving they'll conveniently be more open-minded.

And yes the ICC would need to be HOV 3+ Free

As I've stated regarding Virginia's I-64 southside and HRBT widening projects, IMO there should be at least 3 gp lanes before HOT or express lanes are constructed.
Interestingly enough, the HRTPO is now evaluating a scenario where the existing HOV lanes are left in place, the small reversible HO/T segment opened last year remains in place, and all the new capacity being added to the HRBT and High Rise Bridge is general purpose instead of HO/T. It will be interesting to see the results of that in September-December. It would be nice to see if at least the High Rise Bridge corridor could be switched to GP lanes if it's determined the traffic flow will still be adequate even without HO/T lanes. We'll have to wait and see.

That would be great! Although ultimately it would be VDOT's decision correct?
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2041
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:57:40 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #134 on: July 25, 2019, 02:22:27 PM »

^

The HRTPO will make the recommendation, then CTB would have approve any changes. It wouldn’t be that hard though. The lane is there. Just stripe it as an actual lane instead of a double solid line and tubes dividing the lanes. And don’t put up the gantries.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2379
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: August 23, 2019, 02:24:52 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #135 on: July 25, 2019, 09:56:05 PM »

where drivers headed toward Interstate 95 would be directed onto the Intercounty Connector.

plan to divert traffic off the Beltway onto the ICC.

Using the already built ICC as part of the toll system plans would prevent any need to widen the entire Capital Beltway between I-270 and I-95, Montgomery County argues, protecting homes and parkland that are likely to be affected under the Hogan administration’s current plans.

“This connection provides a managed-lane network for the entire north side of the Capital Beltway without requiring expansion of I-495 between I-270 and I-95,"
Using the ICC is 11 miles and 11 minutes out of the way, and it wouldn't be a viable option to use that as the toll lane network IMO. There needs to be 2 toll lanes built each way on I-495 in order to be successful. If I were a toll paying customer or HOV (if they even will allow that), I'd opt to get off and just ride I-495 GP lanes. Maybe if there was a massive wreck I'd continue to ICC, but that's it. But if they are making the ICC apart of a toll lane network that allows HOV, the ICC should allow HOV 3+ free. But knowing Maryland, these lanes will be everyone pays.

Building two express lanes on I-495 between I-270 and I-95 will be extremely disrupting to both the local community and the environment. I can also guarantee Montgomery County will find some sort of way to fight this project and likely bog it down. This is a compromise that would hopefully get this project started sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that using the ICC will be faster nor that express lanes on this stretch of the I-495 shouldn't happen. I'm just saying to focus on the more publicly favorable parts first and deal with the messy ones later. Maybe when these critics see how fast the rest of I-495 and I-270 are moving they'll conveniently be more open-minded.

And yes the ICC would need to be HOV 3+ Free


The ICC is only of limited value because it is pointed in the NW to SE direction.  For drivers coming from College Park (or other parts of the Beltway in PG County), they may find it useful to take I-95 to ICC towards I-270 north (Gaithersburg, Germantown, Frederick).  But unfortunately, it is pointed in the wrong direction to help alleviate the busier Baltimore-Bethesda/Tysons traffic.  If you take it, you'll be going too far out of your way.

Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 235
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 02:27:43 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #136 on: July 26, 2019, 03:06:18 AM »

where drivers headed toward Interstate 95 would be directed onto the Intercounty Connector.

plan to divert traffic off the Beltway onto the ICC.

Using the already built ICC as part of the toll system plans would prevent any need to widen the entire Capital Beltway between I-270 and I-95, Montgomery County argues, protecting homes and parkland that are likely to be affected under the Hogan administration’s current plans.

“This connection provides a managed-lane network for the entire north side of the Capital Beltway without requiring expansion of I-495 between I-270 and I-95,"
Using the ICC is 11 miles and 11 minutes out of the way, and it wouldn't be a viable option to use that as the toll lane network IMO. There needs to be 2 toll lanes built each way on I-495 in order to be successful. If I were a toll paying customer or HOV (if they even will allow that), I'd opt to get off and just ride I-495 GP lanes. Maybe if there was a massive wreck I'd continue to ICC, but that's it. But if they are making the ICC apart of a toll lane network that allows HOV, the ICC should allow HOV 3+ free. But knowing Maryland, these lanes will be everyone pays.

Building two express lanes on I-495 between I-270 and I-95 will be extremely disrupting to both the local community and the environment. I can also guarantee Montgomery County will find some sort of way to fight this project and likely bog it down. This is a compromise that would hopefully get this project started sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that using the ICC will be faster nor that express lanes on this stretch of the I-495 shouldn't happen. I'm just saying to focus on the more publicly favorable parts first and deal with the messy ones later. Maybe when these critics see how fast the rest of I-495 and I-270 are moving they'll conveniently be more open-minded.

And yes the ICC would need to be HOV 3+ Free


The ICC is only of limited value because it is pointed in the NW to SE direction.  For drivers coming from College Park (or other parts of the Beltway in PG County), they may find it useful to take I-95 to ICC towards I-270 north (Gaithersburg, Germantown, Frederick).  But unfortunately, it is pointed in the wrong direction to help alleviate the busier Baltimore-Bethesda/Tysons traffic.  If you take it, you'll be going too far out of your way.

It is definitely out of the way, BUT there are times even now when it can be a bit faster, just because traffic on the 270-95 stretch of the Beltway can get SOOO bad.
Logged

odditude

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 492
  • Location: NOVA
  • Last Login: August 23, 2019, 04:34:30 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #137 on: July 26, 2019, 02:34:57 PM »

where drivers headed toward Interstate 95 would be directed onto the Intercounty Connector.

plan to divert traffic off the Beltway onto the ICC.

Using the already built ICC as part of the toll system plans would prevent any need to widen the entire Capital Beltway between I-270 and I-95, Montgomery County argues, protecting homes and parkland that are likely to be affected under the Hogan administration’s current plans.

“This connection provides a managed-lane network for the entire north side of the Capital Beltway without requiring expansion of I-495 between I-270 and I-95,"
Using the ICC is 11 miles and 11 minutes out of the way, and it wouldn't be a viable option to use that as the toll lane network IMO. There needs to be 2 toll lanes built each way on I-495 in order to be successful. If I were a toll paying customer or HOV (if they even will allow that), I'd opt to get off and just ride I-495 GP lanes. Maybe if there was a massive wreck I'd continue to ICC, but that's it. But if they are making the ICC apart of a toll lane network that allows HOV, the ICC should allow HOV 3+ free. But knowing Maryland, these lanes will be everyone pays.

Building two express lanes on I-495 between I-270 and I-95 will be extremely disrupting to both the local community and the environment. I can also guarantee Montgomery County will find some sort of way to fight this project and likely bog it down. This is a compromise that would hopefully get this project started sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that using the ICC will be faster nor that express lanes on this stretch of the I-495 shouldn't happen. I'm just saying to focus on the more publicly favorable parts first and deal with the messy ones later. Maybe when these critics see how fast the rest of I-495 and I-270 are moving they'll conveniently be more open-minded.

And yes the ICC would need to be HOV 3+ Free


The ICC is only of limited value because it is pointed in the NW to SE direction.  For drivers coming from College Park (or other parts of the Beltway in PG County), they may find it useful to take I-95 to ICC towards I-270 north (Gaithersburg, Germantown, Frederick).  But unfortunately, it is pointed in the wrong direction to help alleviate the busier Baltimore-Bethesda/Tysons traffic.  If you take it, you'll be going too far out of your way.

It is definitely out of the way, BUT there are times even now when it can be a bit faster, just because traffic on the 270-95 stretch of the Beltway can get SOOO bad.

there have been several times as of late when Waze has suggested I take the ICC to I-270 back down to the Beltway when traveling from NJ to NOVA.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10272
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 03:51:02 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #138 on: July 29, 2019, 02:39:58 PM »

there have been several times as of late when Waze has suggested I take the ICC to I-270 back down to the Beltway when traveling from NJ to NOVA.

I live in the eastern part of Montgomery County (near MD-200) and sometimes have to attend meetings at the VDOT Northern Virginia District near West Ox Road and U.S. 29 (Lee Highway) in Fairfax County.

The ICC is my preferred route because it spares me the misery of U.S. 29 down to I-495, as well as I-495 over to I-270. Unless something is very wrong on I-370 or I-270 between I-370 and the south end of I-270Y (270 Spur) it is an easier drive, even with the added miles.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.