VA I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan

[VTGoose]

Some updates regarding this corridor: https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/local-news/roanoke-valley-news/governor-youngkin-pleased-with-briefing-on-i-81-project/

Except Youngkin had nothing to do with any of this. The program was set up by Gov. Northam, the increased gas tax in the counties I-81 passes through or affects was passed while Northam was in office, and some projects got a bump from Biden's infrastructure funds.
 

[sprjus4]

Some updates regarding this corridor: https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/local-news/roanoke-valley-news/governor-youngkin-pleased-with-briefing-on-i-81-project/

Except Youngkin had nothing to do with any of this. The program was set up by Gov. Northam, the increased gas tax in the counties I-81 passes through or affects was passed while Northam was in office, and some projects got a bump from Biden's infrastructure funds.
 

Except Youngkin is the current Governor? I don't recall him taking "credit" for these projects?

[bluecountry]

From my understanding, here's a recap of all the sections of I-81 that will be six lanes by 2035. This list does not include sections that will be widened in a single direction only. Sections italicized are already 6 lanes at the time of this posting.

Both directions:
MM 0 to MM 8 (Bristol)
MM 73 to MM 82 (I-77 overlap)
MM 116 to MM 150 (Christiansburg to Roanoke)
MM 221 to MM 226 (Staunton)
MM 234 to MM 238 (Weyers Cave)
MM 242 to MM 249 (Harrisonburg)
MM 314 to MM 318 (Winchester)

That comes out to 71 miles, or roughly 22% of the interstate's total length through Virginia.

By far the biggest project in this list is the widening of I-81 between Christiansburg and Roanoke to six lanes. This portion carries the highest volumes of I-81 and features significant elevation change which causes frequent rolling slowdowns with trucks.

Currently, only some portions of this section has been improved, while the majority remains only 4 lanes. MM 141 to MM 143 was widened to six lanes a few years back, and MM 137 to MM 141 is currently under construction to extend that six lanes a few more miles south. Closer to Christiansburg, MM 128 to MM 119 has been fully widened to three lanes in the southbound direction. Around the US-460 bypass interchange (118), a roughly 3.5 mile portion was reconstructed in the early 2000s and can fully accommodate a six-lane cross section with a simple restriping.

Over the next 10 years, two major projects will widen the remainder of this corridor to six lanes, beginning south/west of US-460 in Christiansburg, along with a third project that will widen 7 miles north of I-581 to US-220 Alt (MM 150) to six lanes. The I-581 interchange itself though will remain 2 through lanes in each direction and not be modified.

Outside of the proposed complete 6 lane portions by 2035, two more sections are already being discussed which would add roughly 7-8 more miles of 6 lanes. These would be MM 195 to MM 200 in both directions, and MM 298 to MM 300 northbound - which would supplement the currently under construction southbound widening in that area and complete that section to 6 lanes. No word for when those projects may be funded or constructed, but schematics can be found under the October 2, 2023 in person meeting: https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/advisory/

Well seeing progress on all these portions is great, especially that Christiansburg to Roanoke project, which might be the largest single grouping of projects the I-81 corridor in Virginia has ever seen, outside of its initial construction, it's still important to realize I-81 is 325 miles long in Virginia, and the vast majority still remains 4 lanes and will continue to do so for the next 20+ years unless VDOT accelerates these projects and becomes willing to widen sections in 10-20 mile increments as opposed to a massive construction zone for 5 years just to finish some 3 mile stretch in various areas. Their slow pace with this, along with recent bridge reconstructions such as Exit 114 in Christiansburg that leave no room for expansion, tells me VDOT is content with a 4 lane interstate for 80% of the corridor.

Big mistake not improving the I-66/81 and US 48 section.

[froggie]

Big mistake not improving the I-66/81 and US 48 section.

If you happen to look upthread, that section will be getting a 3rd southbound lane.

[bluecountry]

Big mistake not improving the I-66/81 and US 48 section.

If you happen to look upthread, that section will be getting a 3rd southbound lane.

For the entire length from 48 to 66?

[74/171FAN]

Big mistake not improving the I-66/81 and US 48 section.

If you happen to look upthread, that section will be getting a 3rd southbound lane.

For the entire length from 48 to 66?

Yes based on the map. (https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/)

[bluecountry]

Big mistake not improving the I-66/81 and US 48 section.

If you happen to look upthread, that section will be getting a 3rd southbound lane.

For the entire length from 48 to 66?

Yes based on the map. (https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/)

1.  Should be both ways.
2.  From 66 to 48 should be a c/d.

[sprjus4]

It is on their radar ^

Outside of the proposed complete 6 lane portions by 2035, two more sections are already being discussed which would add roughly 7-8 more miles of 6 lanes. (...)  MM 298 to MM 300 northbound - which would supplement the currently under construction southbound widening in that area and complete that section to 6 lanes. No word for when those projects may be funded or constructed, but schematics can be found under the October 2, 2023 in person meeting: https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/advisory/

[Crown Victoria]

Recent travel on I-81 in Virginia got me curious about the status of the improvement program. It turns out there was recently a meeting of the I-81 Advisory Committee, with some updates:

-Previously, only northbound I-81 between MP 128-137 was slated for widening in the near future. Southbound I-81 in this area was to be completed at a later date. These projects are now advancing together and should start construction in 2025 or 2026 (MP 137-141 is currently being widened.)

-Northbound I-81 from MP 116-128 will follow the completion of MP 128-137. Southbound here is already 3 lanes.

-Various projects to widen both directions of I-81 from MP 190 (I-64 West) to MP 195, as well as southbound I-81 from MP 205 to MP 195, are planned. Northbound I-81 is already 3 lanes from MP 195-MP 202.

-Northbound I-81 from MP 298-MP 300 is planned. Southbound I-81 here is about to begin construction.

-Due to increased funding from state budget surpluses and federal earmarks, there is an opportunity to complete already planned work more quickly and to add new projects to the 64 already included in the CIP. These new projects will be developed through 2025 and presented for approval at an Advisory Committee meeting toward the end of 2025. One such project mentioned in the minutes involves widening I-81 from MP 318 to the WV line.

https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/advisory/advisory-committee/

[Crown Victoria]

Public meetings will be held this week at various locations along the I-81 corridor to discuss proposed additions to the Corridor Improvement Plan. There's also a link to provide feedback online starting tomorrow.

There are quite a few widening projects proposed, as well as additional truck climbing lanes in various locations, ramp extensions, etc. The widening north of Winchester to the WV line that I mentioned previously did not make the cut.

https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/get-involved/2025-cip-update/

[74/171FAN]

The widening north of Winchester to the WV line that I mentioned previously did not make the cut.

I guess this means that WV is not immediately planning to widen its leftover four-lane section south of WV 243 (Exit 8) to 6 lanes. 

[sprjus4]

While the first I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan largely focused on small widening in urban areas (Bristol, Staunton, Harrisonburg, and Winchester), widening around I-66, and widening the portion between Christiansburg and Roanoke, this next wave seems to be quite aggressive with widening recommendations.

Per the potential solutions summary, nearly 115 miles of widening is proposed. This is in addition to the 71 miles that the first wave is adding or was already 6 lanes (Bristol and I-77 overlap). Assuming they all go through, that would bring around 186 miles out of the 325 miles in Virginia to 6 lanes. This would largely be concentrated between Christiansburg and Harrisonburg, although with a few questionable gaps.

Taking a look at the proposed widenings:

Bristol District:
Exit 7 to Exit 14 (both directions)
Exit 7 to Exit 10 southbound only is currently being widened to 3 lanes. This would widen the northbound portion of that section, along with both directions going up to Exit 14.

Salem District
MM 103 to 105 (southbound)
Adding a truck climbing lane going southbound on the upgrade after crossing the New River.

MM 106 to 108 (northbound)
Adding a truck climbing lane going northbound on the upgrade after crossing the New River.

Exit 150 to Exit 167 (both directions)
Continuing from the ongoing and upcoming 32 mile widening between Exit 118 and Exit 150, this would widen another 17 miles to six lanes to the north.

Exit 167 to Exit 168 (both directions) - Realignment
North of the proposed widening up to Exit 167, they are proposing to realign the highway to eliminate a notorious S curve. I would imagine since this is being built on new location and tying into a proposed 6 lane portion, it would be constructed to 6 lanes or at least designed to be widened in the future.

Here is a schematic of that proposal from the October 3, 2023 I-81 Advisory Committee Meeting (click for larger file). The schematic shows only 4 lanes, but this was prior to the widening recommendation to the south.

https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/media/improve81/documentsacc/advisory-committee/oct-2-2023-meeting/easset-upload-file41055-168623-e.pdf

Staunton District
MM 187 to MM 190 (southbound only)
Adding a truck climbing lane going southbound on the upgrade after crossing the Maury River.

MM 190 to Exit 213 (both directions)
Previously, VDOT widened a 7 mile segment going northbound only between Exit 195 and MM 202 to three lanes. Additionally, the previous I-81 plan from 6 years ago is funding 5 miles of southbound only widening between Exit 200 and 205. This proposal would widen the rest of the segment between Exit 190 and Exit 213 to six lanes, and using the portions already completed or proposed.

Exit 217 to Exit 221 (southbound only)
Widening southbound to three lanes near Staunton.

Exit 225 to MM 235 (both directions)
Tying into the an ongoing widening between Exit 221 and Exit 225 to six lanes, this would widen another 10 miles going north to six lanes. Between MM 235 and 238, an ongoing project is adding truck climbing lanes in both directions (essentially six lane widening).

MM 238 to MM 242 (both directions)
Tying into the aforementioned truck climbing lanes between MM 235 and 238, this would widen another 4 miles going north to six lanes. This would also tie into the proposed widening between MM 242 and MM 248 in the Harrisonburg area.

Exit 296 to Exit 300 (both directions)
An ongoing project is currently widening I-81 southbound only to 3 lanes between Exit 296 and Exit 300 (I-66). This potential widening would widen the northbound lanes to 3 lanes in this area, creating a 4 mile portion of six lane highway up until the I-66 junction.

Exit 310 to 313 (northbound only)
Widening northbound to three lanes near Winchester. Would tie into the proposed widening to six lanes between Exit 313 and Exit 317.


My thoughts:
As I mentioned previously, the bulk of the widening seems to be concentrated between Roanoke and Harrisonburg, with a couple of glaring gaps.

Looking at the corridor going north, MM 118 to MM 150 is either under construction or will be in the next few years, widening to six lanes. This next wave recommends extending that widening up to MM 167 (or MM 168 with the curve realignment).

But then there will be around a 23 mile gap for northbound traffic up to MM 190 where it will only be two lanes. Southbound will only have around a 20 mile gap due to the proposed truck climbing lane between MM 190 and MM 187.

This is the part that I do not understand:

North of there, six lane widening is proposed (and partially exists) between MM 190 and MM 213. Northbound will then go 8 miles with only two lanes before opening back up to three lanes north of I-64 in Staunton. Those three lanes will then continue more than 20 miles up through Harrisonburg. Southbound will have an additional 4 miles of three lanes extending down to MM 217, drop to two lanes at MM 217 after 20+ miles of three lanes lanes, and then will open back up to three lanes again at MM 213 for another 20+ miles.

This would create a mere 4 mile gap in an otherwise 52 mile southbound portion of three lanes between Harrisonburg and Lexington, and an 8 mile gap for northbound traffic. It would seem logical to me to widen MM 213 to MM 221 to six lanes and eliminate that small gap, or at minimum the 4 mile southbound gap. That short two lane section could also create an unnecessary bottleneck during heavy travel times.

There is also a 20-23 mile gap (depending on direction) between MM 167 and MM 187/190, and while this should ideally be filled, 20-23 miles is considerably more of a sizable gap than 4-8 miles so it is slightly more understandable. I imagine that if these projects are approved, it won't be long until those two gaps are proposed to be filled not to far after. Closing those two gaps would create 131 miles of six lane interstate highway between Christiansburg and Harrisonburg.

[Crown Victoria]

While the first I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan largely focused on small widening in urban areas (Bristol, Staunton, Harrisonburg, and Winchester), widening around I-66, and widening the portion between Christiansburg and Roanoke, this next wave seems to be quite aggressive with widening recommendations.

Per the potential solutions summary, nearly 115 miles of widening is proposed. This is in addition to the 71 miles that the first wave is adding or was already 6 lanes (Bristol and I-77 overlap). Assuming they all go through, that would bring around 186 miles out of the 325 miles in Virginia to 6 lanes. This would largely be concentrated between Christiansburg and Harrisonburg, although with a few questionable gaps.

Taking a look at the proposed widenings:

Bristol District:
Exit 7 to Exit 14 (both directions)
Exit 7 to Exit 10 southbound only is currently being widened to 3 lanes. This would widen the northbound portion of that section, along with both directions going up to Exit 14.

Salem District
MM 103 to 105 (southbound)
Adding a truck climbing lane going southbound on the upgrade after crossing the New River.

MM 106 to 108 (northbound)
Adding a truck climbing lane going northbound on the upgrade after crossing the New River.

Exit 150 to Exit 167 (both directions)
Continuing from the ongoing and upcoming 32 mile widening between Exit 118 and Exit 150, this would widen another 17 miles to six lanes to the north.

Exit 167 to Exit 168 (both directions) - Realignment
North of the proposed widening up to Exit 167, they are proposing to realign the highway to eliminate a notorious S curve. I would imagine since this is being built on new location and tying into a proposed 6 lane portion, it would be constructed to 6 lanes or at least designed to be widened in the future.

Here is a schematic of that proposal from the October 3, 2023 I-81 Advisory Committee Meeting (click for larger file). The schematic shows only 4 lanes, but this was prior to the widening recommendation to the south.

https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/media/improve81/documentsacc/advisory-committee/oct-2-2023-meeting/easset-upload-file41055-168623-e.pdf

Staunton District
MM 187 to MM 190 (southbound only)
Adding a truck climbing lane going southbound on the upgrade after crossing the Maury River.

MM 190 to Exit 213 (both directions)
Previously, VDOT widened a 7 mile segment going northbound only between Exit 195 and MM 202 to three lanes. Additionally, the previous I-81 plan from 6 years ago is funding 5 miles of southbound only widening between Exit 200 and 205. This proposal would widen the rest of the segment between Exit 190 and Exit 213 to six lanes, and using the portions already completed or proposed.

Exit 217 to Exit 221 (southbound only)
Widening southbound to three lanes near Staunton.

Exit 225 to MM 235 (both directions)
Tying into the an ongoing widening between Exit 221 and Exit 225 to six lanes, this would widen another 10 miles going north to six lanes. Between MM 235 and 238, an ongoing project is adding truck climbing lanes in both directions (essentially six lane widening).

MM 238 to MM 242 (both directions)
Tying into the aforementioned truck climbing lanes between MM 235 and 238, this would widen another 4 miles going north to six lanes. This would also tie into the proposed widening between MM 242 and MM 248 in the Harrisonburg area.

Exit 296 to Exit 300 (both directions)
An ongoing project is currently widening I-81 southbound only to 3 lanes between Exit 296 and Exit 300 (I-66). This potential widening would widen the northbound lanes to 3 lanes in this area, creating a 4 mile portion of six lane highway up until the I-66 junction.

Exit 310 to 313 (northbound only)
Widening northbound to three lanes near Winchester. Would tie into the proposed widening to six lanes between Exit 313 and Exit 317.


My thoughts:
As I mentioned previously, the bulk of the widening seems to be concentrated between Roanoke and Harrisonburg, with a couple of glaring gaps.

Looking at the corridor going north, MM 118 to MM 150 is either under construction or will be in the next few years, widening to six lanes. This next wave recommends extending that widening up to MM 167 (or MM 168 with the curve realignment).

But then there will be around a 23 mile gap for northbound traffic up to MM 190 where it will only be two lanes. Southbound will only have around a 20 mile gap due to the proposed truck climbing lane between MM 190 and MM 187.

This is the part that I do not understand:

North of there, six lane widening is proposed (and partially exists) between MM 190 and MM 213. Northbound will then go 8 miles with only two lanes before opening back up to three lanes north of I-64 in Staunton. Those three lanes will then continue more than 20 miles up through Harrisonburg. Southbound will have an additional 4 miles of three lanes extending down to MM 217, drop to two lanes at MM 217 after 20+ miles of three lanes lanes, and then will open back up to three lanes again at MM 213 for another 20+ miles.

This would create a mere 4 mile gap in an otherwise 52 mile southbound portion of three lanes between Harrisonburg and Lexington, and an 8 mile gap for northbound traffic. It would seem logical to me to widen MM 213 to MM 221 to six lanes and eliminate that small gap, or at minimum the 4 mile southbound gap. That short two lane section could also create an unnecessary bottleneck during heavy travel times.

There is also a 20-23 mile gap (depending on direction) between MM 167 and MM 187/190, and while this should ideally be filled, 20-23 miles is considerably more of a sizable gap than 4-8 miles so it is slightly more understandable. I imagine that if these projects are approved, it won't be long until those two gaps are proposed to be filled not to far after. Closing those two gaps would create 131 miles of six lane interstate highway between Christiansburg and Harrisonburg.

Thank you for the breakdown. I agree with your thoughts, and will add another:

The MM 187-190 truck lane proposal should be extended down to around MP 182 or so (or a separate truck climbing lane project added) to include the climb from the Buffalo Creek bridge. Indeed, widening was already completed from the Buffalo Creek bridge up to the Hops Hill Rd. overpass years ago.

[sprjus4]

The MM 187-190 truck lane proposal should be extended down to around MP 182 or so (or a separate truck climbing lane project added) to include the climb from the Buffalo Creek bridge. Indeed, widening was already completed from the Buffalo Creek bridge up to the Hops Hill Rd. overpass years ago.

While I think the whole segment between MM 167 and MM 187 should be widened to six lanes, I agree that climbing lanes should also be added in that area as an interim measure. I've been stuck behind slow moving trucks there quite a few times going up that hill.

[Beltway]

While the first I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan largely focused on small widening in urban areas (Bristol, Staunton, Harrisonburg, and Winchester), widening around I-66, and widening the portion between Christiansburg and Roanoke, this next wave seems to be quite aggressive with widening recommendations.
Per the potential solutions summary, nearly 115 miles of widening is proposed. This is in addition to the 71 miles that the first wave is adding or was already 6 lanes (Bristol and I-77 overlap). Assuming they all go through, that would bring around 186 miles out of the 325 miles in Virginia to 6 lanes. This would largely be concentrated between Christiansburg and Harrisonburg, although with a few questionable gaps.

That would be nice, but that Powerpoint file also says --
$2 - 2.25 billion in revenue anticipated to be available for new projects. Potential solutions identified in 2025 CIP far exceed anticipated revenue.
. . . . .

The 32 miles of widening between Christiansburg and Troutville will cost $1.7 billion in total. That is an average of $53 million per mile. The highest priority segment and very needed but super expensive.

The cost of heavy construction has increased dramatically all over the country in the last 10 years and continues to. VDOT announced this month that highway construction costs have increased 24% in the last three years, and that the Six Year Program needs to be updated to reflect higher than projected cost inflation.

So 115 miles of major widening would cost $6.1 billion even at $53 million per mile.

It is good to see that the I-81 CIP will continue after the initial round of widenings.

Maybe they will reinstate the ISRRPP and finance part of it with tolls, but I doubt it, nobody wants to do it anywhere in the U.S.

Both Virginia and Missouri held provisional slots under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP), but neither state ever implemented tolling under it.

Created under TEA-21 in 1998, ISRRPP allows up to three states to toll existing Interstate segments to fund reconstruction and  new lanes.  It's the only federal program that permits tolling of existing mainline Interstate lanes built with 90:10 federal/state funding that required them to be toll-free.

As of the last FHWA solicitation, all three ISRRPP slots were vacant. The program has existed for over 25 years without a single tolling project being implemented — a fact that's drawn criticism from groups like the Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates, who call it a "failed pilot".

[Crown Victoria]

While the first I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan largely focused on small widening in urban areas (Bristol, Staunton, Harrisonburg, and Winchester), widening around I-66, and widening the portion between Christiansburg and Roanoke, this next wave seems to be quite aggressive with widening recommendations.
Per the potential solutions summary, nearly 115 miles of widening is proposed. This is in addition to the 71 miles that the first wave is adding or was already 6 lanes (Bristol and I-77 overlap). Assuming they all go through, that would bring around 186 miles out of the 325 miles in Virginia to 6 lanes. This would largely be concentrated between Christiansburg and Harrisonburg, although with a few questionable gaps.

That would be nice, but that Powerpoint file also says --
$2 - 2.25 billion in revenue anticipated to be available for new projects. Potential solutions identified in 2025 CIP far exceed anticipated revenue.
. . . . .

The 32 miles of widening between Christiansburg and Troutville will cost $1.7 billion in total. That is an average of $53 million per mile. The highest priority segment and very needed but super expensive.

The cost of heavy construction has increased dramatically all over the country in the last 10 years and continues to. VDOT announced this month that highway construction costs have increased 24% in the last three years, and that the Six Year Program needs to be updated to reflect higher than projected cost inflation.

So 115 miles of major widening would cost $6.1 billion even at $53 million per mile.

It is good to see that the I-81 CIP will continue after the initial round of widenings.

Maybe they will reinstate the ISRRPP and finance part of it with tolls, but I doubt it, nobody wants to do it anywhere in the U.S.

Both Virginia and Missouri held provisional slots under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP), but neither state ever implemented tolling under it.

Created under TEA-21 in 1998, ISRRPP allows up to three states to toll existing Interstate segments to fund reconstruction and  new lanes.  It's the only federal program that permits tolling of existing mainline Interstate lanes built with 90:10 federal/state funding that required them to be toll-free.

As of the last FHWA solicitation, all three ISRRPP slots were vacant. The program has existed for over 25 years without a single tolling project being implemented — a fact that's drawn criticism from groups like the Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates, who call it a "failed pilot".

I'm well aware that not all these projects will make the cut, but it's good to see that they're being proposed. It further illustrates the need for more funding for projects on the I-81 corridor.

As far as tolling, I think that's what Virginia should have done with I-81 when this all started back in 2018. Tolling would have been a more reliable means of funding long-term. I also doubt VA will revisit tolling anytime soon.

[Beltway]

I'm well aware that not all these projects will make the cut, but it's good to see that they're being proposed. It further illustrates the need for more funding for projects on the I-81 corridor.
As far as tolling, I think that's what Virginia should have done with I-81 when this all started back in 2018. Tolling would have been a more reliable means of funding long-term. I also doubt VA will revisit tolling anytime soon.

Actually, well before 2018.

"Fluor Virginia consortium says it can widen highway faster, at lower cost than rival can", Roanoke Times, January 18, 2003. Excerpt:
A second group of road-building companies said Friday that it can widen Interstate 81 faster and for less money than other builders. Fluor Virginia Inc. said it can add two car-only lanes in the median of I-81 for $1.8 billion by 2011 and pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks.
. . . .
The Fluor proposal would involve no public tax funding, and it would toll all vehicles, and Fluor proposed tolls of 10 cents per mile for trucks, and 3 cents per mile for cars.

While an average of $5.5 million per mile of widening sounds very low today, it is plausible that 22 years ago a simple one lane each way widening using these massive economies of scale could have done that. Heavy construction  cost inflation has mushroomed since then.

I was one of the ones in favor of doing this. To think that in 2011 we could have had I-81 six lanes all the way thru the state, and that after that VDOT could have continued to improve interchanges as they have been doing in numbers of instances.

But only one other state got one of these provisional pilot projects -- I-70 thru Missouri -- a highway that people there say is in serious need of six-laning thru the state -- this went nowhere as well.

No other state applied for the third pilot project.

TEA-21 - Fact Sheet: Interstate Toll Pilot. Excerpt:
TEA-21 creates a pilot program under which a State may collect tolls on an Interstate highway for the purpose of reconstructing or rehabilitating an Interstate highway that could not otherwise be adequately maintained or functionally improved without the collection of tolls. [1216(b)(1)]
A maximum of three Interstate facilities may be included in the pilot program, and they must be in different States. [1216(b)(2)]

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/tolpilot.htm

[Crown Victoria]

I'm well aware that not all these projects will make the cut, but it's good to see that they're being proposed. It further illustrates the need for more funding for projects on the I-81 corridor.
As far as tolling, I think that's what Virginia should have done with I-81 when this all started back in 2018. Tolling would have been a more reliable means of funding long-term. I also doubt VA will revisit tolling anytime soon.

Actually, well before 2018.

"Fluor Virginia consortium says it can widen highway faster, at lower cost than rival can", Roanoke Times, January 18, 2003. Excerpt:
A second group of road-building companies said Friday that it can widen Interstate 81 faster and for less money than other builders. Fluor Virginia Inc. said it can add two car-only lanes in the median of I-81 for $1.8 billion by 2011 and pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks.
. . . .
The Fluor proposal would involve no public tax funding, and it would toll all vehicles, and Fluor proposed tolls of 10 cents per mile for trucks, and 3 cents per mile for cars.

While an average of $5.5 million per mile of widening sounds very low today, it is plausible that 22 years ago a simple one lane each way widening using these massive economies of scale could have done that. Heavy construction  cost inflation has mushroomed since then.

I was one of the ones in favor of doing this. To think that in 2011 we could have had I-81 six lanes all the way thru the state, and that after that VDOT could have continued to improve interchanges as they have been doing in numbers of instances.

But only one other state got one of these provisional pilot projects -- I-70 thru Missouri -- a highway that people there say is in serious need of six-laning thru the state -- this went nowhere as well.

No other state applied for the third pilot project.

TEA-21 - Fact Sheet: Interstate Toll Pilot. Excerpt:
TEA-21 creates a pilot program under which a State may collect tolls on an Interstate highway for the purpose of reconstructing or rehabilitating an Interstate highway that could not otherwise be adequately maintained or functionally improved without the collection of tolls. [1216(b)(1)]
A maximum of three Interstate facilities may be included in the pilot program, and they must be in different States. [1216(b)(2)]

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/tolpilot.htm

To be fair, I was referring to the successful CIP, but yes, it would have been nice if the 2003 proposal had worked out.

As far as the tolling pilot program, keep an eye on Indiana. They recently passed a law allowing for tolling on any interstate without further legislative approval. I'm not aware of any specific proposal, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

[Beltway]

To be fair, I was referring to the successful CIP, but yes, it would have been nice if the 2003 proposal had worked out.
As far as the tolling pilot program, keep an eye on Indiana. They recently passed a law allowing for tolling on any interstate without further legislative approval. I'm not aware of any specific proposal, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

INDOT must still get Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval before any tolls go live.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) enforces a general prohibition on tolling existing Interstate highways built with federal aid, unless very specific conditions are met.

FHWA Tolling Restrictions
Under Title 23 of the U.S. Code, tolling is generally banned on federal-aid highways — but there are exceptions:
+ Section 129 General Tolling Program: Allows tolls on new highways, new lanes, or reconstruction of bridges/tunnels — but not on existing free lanes.
+ Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP): Permits tolling on up to three existing Interstate facilities — but slots are limited and must be approved by FHWA.
+ Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP): Allows tolls on existing roads only if variable pricing is used to manage congestion — also capped at 15 slots.

What Indiana Faces
Even with state-level authorization, Indiana must:
+ Apply for one of these federal tolling programs
+ Execute a toll agreement with FHWA
+ Prove that toll revenue will be used for eligible transportation purposes

FHWA could absolutely slow or block tolling on existing Interstates unless Indiana navigates the federal maze.

[sprjus4]

But only one other state got one of these provisional pilot projects -- I-70 thru Missouri -- a highway that people there say is in serious need of six-laning thru the state -- this went nowhere as well.

All 200 miles of I-70 between St. Louis and Kansas City is being widened to 6 lanes using traditional funding methods without tolls. The $2.8 billion project funded by the state budget is divided into 8 segments that will be complete by the end of 2030.

https://www.modot.org/improvei70/home

[Beltway]

But only one other state got one of these provisional pilot projects -- I-70 thru Missouri -- a highway that people there say is in serious need of six-laning thru the state -- this went nowhere as well.

All 200 miles of I-70 between St. Louis and Kansas City is being widened to 6 lanes using traditional funding methods without tolls. The $2.8 billion project funded by the state budget is divided into 8 segments that will be complete by the end of 2030.
https://www.modot.org/improvei70/home

$2.8 billion for 192 miles of six-lane widening and complete in 5 years? Average of about $14.4 million per mile? That seems rather optimistic.

Let's break down that $14M/Mile
At face value, it sounds reasonable — but it hinges on big assumptions:
+ Flat (or gently rolling) terrain and existing right-of-way help keep costs low, especially since I-70's footprint is largely rural between Blue Springs and Wentzville.
+ Missouri is using design-build contracting, which accelerates timelines by integrating design and construction under one umbrella.
+ They aren't rebuilding every interchange from scratch — some will get minor upgrades while others (like the I-64/I-70 interchange in Wentzville) need a full overhaul.
+ Doesn't include the metro KC and St. Louis sections of I-70, already widened.

The I-64 GAP Widening of 28 miles was awarded 2023-25 using design-build contracting at a total of $587 million which is an average of $21 million per mile. That is an outstandingly low cost by today's standards, and it has basically the same four points as I-70. Plus only four pairs of mainline bridge widenings.

[I-55]

Normally I would expect a single 10-mile widening project to take four to five years. I can't imagine letting this many contracts to bid at the same time, on the same road, in tandem to one another. Then again, I remember when I-49 magically appeared in my road atlas north of Joplin many years ago, so maybe Missouri needs to give the other DOTs a TED talk.

[Beltway]

Normally I would expect a single 10-mile widening project to take four to five years. I can't imagine letting this many contracts to bid at the same time, on the same road, in tandem to one another. Then again, I remember when I-49 magically appeared in my road atlas north of Joplin many years ago, so maybe Missouri needs to give the other DOTs a TED talk.

There is the issue of contractor capacity and sub-contractor capacity. Too many large projects running at once can overwhelm the available supply of raw materials and finished components. Drawing them from afar can jack up the unit cost of the materials.