VA I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan

[Plutonic Panda]

It's progress at least. It would be nice if they would just pass some kind of a funding bill to widen the whole damn thing to three lanes each way.

[Beltway]

It's progress at least. It would be nice if they would just pass some kind of a funding bill to widen the whole damn thing to three lanes each way.

We had that 20 years ago but it didn't go anywhere.

I was in favor of it.

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".

"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

[vdeane]

No other state applied for the third pilot project.

PA did.  Twice.  They got rejected both times because they were going to use the revenue to fund transit rather than work on I-80.

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.

There must be some kind of loophole for bridges, because RI was allowed to implement the truck tolling on interstates where they rebuilt bridges, and CT tried to do that for all drivers before politics killed the project.

[Rothman]

I'd assume the ISRRPP expired when the FAST Act did.  Doesn't look like it was renewed for the IIJA/BIL?

ETA:  And no additional funding associated with the program.  Eesh.  Seemed destined to fail given the requirements, especially arguing that it could not be maintained within available apportionments.  Not sure how you make an effective argument there, since it all boils down to prioritization and then you sound like you're trying to progress a low priority project.  Throw in paving projects being able to be phased, as opposed to big bridges...

[wriddle082]

Hasn't Indiana recently received final approval to widen I-70 across their state using tolls?

[Rothman]

Hasn't Indiana recently received final approval to widen I-70 across their state using tolls?

I'm wondering if PA and IN were following different processes to do so outside of this weird little pilot program that had little to no incentive to be taken advantage of.

[Beltway]

No other state applied for the third pilot project.

PA did.  Twice.  They got rejected both times because they were going to use the revenue to fund transit rather than work on I-80.

PA's ISRRPP applications were never tied to a full corridor reconstruction. Most of I‑80 wasn't slated for end‑to‑end rebuild; it was the usual mix of pavement rehab, spot full‑depth work, and scattered bridge projects. That's routine capital maintenance, not the kind of "facility reconstruction" ISRRPP was written for.

FHWA saw that immediately. If the corridor can be maintained through normal rehab cycles, it doesn't qualify as an Interstate reconstruction project that "cannot be adequately maintained without tolling." And once you strip away the reconstruction framing, the whole proposal collapses into what it actually was: a revenue‑diversion plan for statewide public transit systems.

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.

There must be some kind of loophole for bridges, because RI was allowed to implement the truck tolling on interstates where they rebuilt bridges, and CT tried to do that for all drivers before politics killed the project.

The "loophole" isn't in ISRRPP. It's in the separate federal provisions that allow tolling new capacity or reconstructed bridges on the Interstate system. Those are governed by 23 U.S.C. §129, not the ISRRPP pilot. That's how Rhode Island implemented truck‑only tolls on specific bridges, and why Connecticut explored a similar structure before the politics collapsed.

[Beltway]

Hasn't Indiana recently received final approval to widen I-70 across their state using tolls?

Indiana did not get approval to toll I‑70. What they received was FHWA approval for added‑capacity widening under the normal Interstate rules. It's a conventional, federally‑funded widening project -- no ISRRPP, no tolling of existing lanes, no special pilot program.

INDOT explored tolling years ago under the "Next Level Connections" study, but the governor froze the idea and nothing moved forward. The current I‑70 work is straight capacity addition, not a toll project.

[Rothman]

Well, not yet...

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/politics/tolls-on-i-70-state-moves-forward-to-raise-money-by-tolling-the-interstate-crider-highway-indot-funding-braun-federal-highway-administration/531-be3aab7a-0baf-479d-a36f-5a773a873dcd

[Beltway]

Indiana's push to toll I‑70 is running straight into the same federal wall that stopped Pennsylvania's I‑80 plan and Missouri's earlier I‑70 attempt. State lawmakers want tolls to generate long‑term revenue for highway funding, but federal law doesn't allow tolling an existing Interstate simply to raise money.

Under 23 U.S.C. §129, a state can toll an Interstate only if it is being fully reconstructed and the toll revenue is used exclusively for that reconstruction. Indiana has not proposed a corridor‑wide rebuild, and its own legislators describe tolling as a funding mechanism rather than a reconstruction plan.

FHWA has consistently rejected similar proposals because of diversion impacts, interstate commerce concerns, and the statutory limits Congress imposed. Even the old Interstate tolling pilot program has effectively collapsed, with all three slots revoked after states failed to meet federal requirements. Under current law, Indiana's I‑70 tolling concept is almost certain to be denied.

FHWA has never approved tolling an existing mainline Interstate corridor.

[Crown Victoria]

A video on the project to widen southbound I-81 to three lanes from exit 205 to just past exit 200.

$116 million project and is expected to start construction in 2028.

Among the projects under consideration for January 2026 vote (pending CTB approval):
Washington County / City of Bristol: A northbound auxiliary lane between exit 3 and exit 5, and widening in both directions between mile marker 8 and exit 14.
Pulaski / Montgomery Counties: A southbound truck climbing lane from the New River Bridge to mile marker 103, and a northbound truck climbing lane from exit 105 to exit 109.
Augusta County: An additional southbound lane from exit 221 to exit 217.
Rockingham County: Widening both directions between mile marker 238 and mile marker 242.
Shenandoah / Warren Counties: Adding a third northbound lane from exit 298 to exit 300.

Here's the final report for the 2025 I-81 CIP update, as approved last month:
https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/media/improve81/documentsacc/corridor-improvement-plan/VDOT-I-81-Corridor-Improvement-Plan-Final-Report_acc01142026.pdf

The projects mentioned made the cut, in addition to:

-Widening northbound from the southern I-64 interchange to the existing 3-lane section (190-195)
-Extending the aforementioned existing 3-lane section to Raphine (exit 205)
-Starting 3 lanes northbound at US 48/VA to I-66 (296-298 and 298-300) (would imagine this becomes one project)
-Starting 3 lanes northbound at Exit 310, up to the already planned Winchester widening

[Rothman]

Makes me wonder about the history of section 129 and the ISRRPP, then.  The purposes and constraints seem very similar.  Perhaps that's also why ISRRPP didn't attract too many takers.  129's been sitting there since...1958, if Google is correct (P.L. 85-767?).

[Beltway]

Section 129 does go back to the 1958 Highway Act, but its original purpose was extremely narrow -- it allowed tolling only for new toll facilities or for converting existing toll roads into Interstates. The modern, flexible §129 we think of today didn't really exist until the 1987 and 1991 reauthorizations, when Congress expanded it to cover reconstruction, rehabilitation, and new capacity.

ISRRPP was created later in 1998 as a separate experiment because Congress wanted to test whether states could toll an existing, toll‑free Interstate corridor for full reconstruction. The reason ISRRPP attracted almost no takers is precisely because its constraints were so tight: the revenue had to stay on the corridor, the project had to be full corridor reconstruction, and diversion impacts had to be mitigated. Most states wanted the revenue flexibility, not the reconstruction authority.

So while §129 and ISRRPP look similar today, they came from different eras and served different policy goals. §129 is the general tolling authority; ISRRPP was a narrowly tailored pilot for a problem most states didn't actually want to solve.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Ground has been broken on the I-81 widening project through Harrisonburg.

[Beltway]

More than $2 billion dollars' worth of new projects have been added to the I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan (CIP). The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) in January approved 22 future capital  improvements as well as $3 million in traffic operations enhancements.

The new construction will be scheduled over a 10-year period beginning in 2035, as current CIP projects are completed and funding for the next round is expected to become available.

Details of the 22 future projects are at Improve81.org. Highlights include:
• Eight new widening projects in Frederick, Shenandoah, Rockingham, Augusta, Rockbridge and Washington counties
• Two new truck-climbing lanes in the New River Valley
• New auxiliary lanes in the Bristol and  Staunton areas
• Ten acceleration- and deceleration-lane extensions at interchanges throughout the I-81 corridor

https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/media/improve81/documentsacc/VDOT_Improve_81_Newsletter_Spring-2026_acc041026_PM.pdf

[Beltway]

RICHMOND — The Commonwealth Transportation Board at its April 22 meeting in Fredericksburg awarded a contract to widen about three miles of Interstate 81 in Roanoke County and Salem between mile marker 133.8 to exit 137. Construction of this segment is expected to begin in spring 2027.

The contract for $237.75 million was awarded to Triton Construction, Inc. of Virginia. More than 50,000 vehicles use this stretch of I-81 every day.

The project is funded by the I-81 Corridor Improvement Program (CIP) which enhances safety, reduces congestion and unlocks the region for further economic growth.

https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/news-events/news/statewide/contract-awarded-for-interstate-81-widening-project-in-roanoke-county-and-salem.php

[sprjus4]

Badly needed... but 8 years for construction, yikes.

[Beltway]

Badly needed... but 8 years for construction, yikes.

This is one of three projects. As they say --

The planned 3.2-mile project is part of a larger improvement project along nine miles of I-81 northbound and southbound near Ironto, which includes three separate segments:

Segment N: Mile marker 133.8 to exit 137 (contract awarded)
Segment M: Mile markers 131 to 133.8 with construction expected to start in 2028
Segment S: Exit 128 to mile marker 131 with construction expected to start late 2027/early 2028
. . . . .

Not sure why it said 2035. If those go according to schedule it would be more like 2031.

[sprjus4]

Badly needed... but 8 years for construction, yikes.

This is one of three projects. As they say --

The planned 3.2-mile project is part of a larger improvement project along nine miles of I-81 northbound and southbound near Ironto, which includes three separate segments:

Segment N: Mile marker 133.8 to exit 137 (contract awarded)
Segment M: Mile markers 131 to 133.8 with construction expected to start in 2028
Segment S: Exit 128 to mile marker 131 with construction expected to start late 2027/early 2028
. . . . .

Not sure why it said 2035. If those go according to schedule it would be more like 2031.

I'd hope so...

I-81 northbound only (southbound is already 3 lanes) widening between MM 118 and MM 128 is set to begin in March 2030 and also has a completion date of 2035.

I'm not sure why the much more difficult mountainous widening has a 5 year time frame, and the segment from MM 128 to MM 141 has an 8 year time frame.

Regardless, once all these projects wrap up by 2035, I-81 will be six lanes between MM 118 and MM 150, which will be a significant improvement and unlock a notorious bottleneck.

I believe further widening of I-81 north of MM 150 is proposed in the next round of projects as well.

[Beltway]

I-81 northbound only (southbound is already 3 lanes) widening between MM 118 and MM 128 is set to begin in March 2030 and also has a completion date of 2035.
I'm not sure why the much more difficult mountainous widening has a 5 year time frame, and the segment from MM 128 to MM 141 has an 8 year time frame.
Regardless, once all these projects wrap up by 2035, I-81 will be six lanes between MM 118 and MM 150, which will be a significant improvement and unlock a notorious bottleneck.
I believe further widening of I-81 north of MM 150 is proposed in the next round of projects as well.

Christiansburg to Troutville completed -- I surmise that is what they meant by 2035. But per currently projected dates all will be under construction by 2028.

[VTGoose]

I'd hope so...

I-81 northbound only (southbound is already 3 lanes) widening between MM 118 and MM 128 is set to begin in March 2030 and also has a completion date of 2035.

I'm not sure why the much more difficult mountainous widening has a 5 year time frame, and the segment from MM 128 to MM 141 has an 8 year time frame.

If the northbound work between Christiansburg and Ironto goes like the southbound work, there will be times that the whole road can be shut down and traffic detoured from Dixie Caverns to Christiansburg on parallel U.S. 11/460. That will speed the work that has to be done.

The section from Ironto to the first Salem exit doesn't have a good parallel detour -- U.S. 11/460 is there, but from Glenvar to Wildwood Rd. is a 45 MPH zone with traffic lights and just more traffic. The interstate also has to be shoehorned into a narrower right of way with houses and properties that back right up to the fence line (much like the section from Salem to I-581 that might be done by fall). That section will have sound walls to deal with.

I don't know if the contractor on this next section is the same one who has been working on the current section, but I hope not. The current project seems to have been done very piecemeal -- work would be done on one of the bridges near the south end, then grading would be done in the middle, then work on a section of median wall, but not continuous -- all while the lanes shifted back and forth between bad pavement and a short stretch of new asphalt.

It will be worth the pain when it is all done, though. That stretch needed work way back when the private contractors offered to upgrade I-81.

Bruce in Blacksburg

[Beltway]

If the northbound work between Christiansburg and Ironto goes like the southbound work, there will be times that the whole road can be shut down and traffic detoured from Dixie Caverns to Christiansburg on parallel U.S. 11/460. That will speed the work that has to be done.

Wasn't that pretty brutal when they did that last time? At least for a day or two at time for blasting shots (there were 137 in all).

U.S. 11/460 over Christiansburg Mountain was dicey enough before that I-81 segment opened in 1972.

[VTGoose]

If the northbound work between Christiansburg and Ironto goes like the southbound work, there will be times that the whole road can be shut down and traffic detoured from Dixie Caverns to Christiansburg on parallel U.S. 11/460. That will speed the work that has to be done.

Wasn't that pretty brutal when they did that last time? At least for a day or two at time for blasting shots (there were 137 in all).

U.S. 11/460 over Christiansburg Mountain was dicey enough before that I-81 segment opened in 1972.

I have it backwards -- traffic would exit at Christiansburg and go down Christiansburg Mountain on U.S. 11/460 and get back on I-81 at Dixie Caverns. I don't know if that's how the project will go, but it makes sense if occasional shut-downs expedite the construction.

[Beltway]

Wasn't that pretty brutal when they did that last time? At least for a day or two at time for blasting shots (there were 137 in all). U.S. 11/460 over Christiansburg Mountain was dicey enough before that I-81 segment opened in 1972.

I have it backwards -- traffic would exit at Christiansburg and go down Christiansburg Mountain on U.S. 11/460 and get back on I-81 at Dixie Caverns. I don't know if that's how the project will go, but it makes sense if occasional shut-downs expedite the construction.

I agree from an engineering and construction standpoint, but at AADT 50,000 and 28% large trucks that must create some awful congestion. You live in the area so you would know first time what happened last time.

We had an ASHE presentation several years ago by the excavation company for that project. He said for safety reasons they must close the roadway to fire a shot, because the soil shifting behavior is unpredictable, and it usually takes hours or even a couple days to clear all the rubble off the roadway. They will not do any work (drilling, placing charges, firing) at night for safety reasons. Rain can interfere depending on how much. With that many shots within a two year period they cannot make weekends off limits, or try to do most of the work targeted on lower volume weekdays. Where both roadways are close together they may need to close both. This is the way that these contractors work, and they won't take the job unless they can do the above.

They said this is a harbinger of what will happen on many other sections of I-81 when they are widened.

[Plutonic Panda]

Another contract awarded to widen I-81:

https://www.equipmentworld.com/roadbuilding/article/15824635/virginia-dot-awards-237-million-i81-widening-contract