Hampton Roads, Va. area toll crossings and toll roads

[Beltway]

For the High Rise Bridge, that is currently the decision for Phase #2, and for the HRBT, I mentioned above they are doing 2 HO/T + 2 GP during peak times. They could've done a 1 HO/T + 3 GP using an outside "shoulder" lane but they chose to make that shoulder lane an additional HO/T.
And you are right, these easily could change. But right now, that's currently the decision made.

HRBT will be a four-tube tunnel with 2 lanes in each tube.  I could see a difficulty in running one HOT and one GP in a tube as there would be no passing allowed.

I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge financial plan is not really clear about the configuration and the wording seems to imply one HOT lane each way added in each phase.  I don't think that is correct.

[Beltway]

Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Expansion Project Procurement Update to Commonwealth Transportation Board Feb 19, 2019
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/feb/pres/1_hrbt.pdf

Excerpts:

Scope of HRBT Expansion Project
-- Settlers Landing in Hampton to I-564 Norfolk (10 Miles)
-- I-64 improvements include 6 lanes of highway + drivable shoulder and construction of 4 lane bridge/tunnel
-- New HRBT tunnels will serve Eastbound traffic
-- Existing HRBT tunnels will serve Westbound traffic
-- Design-Build Contract Value:  $3.3B
-- VDOT will pay for South Island Trestle Bridge Replacement Work (180 days option to identify funding sources)
-- Execute Comprehensive Agreement NLT (no later than):  Apr 15, 2019
-- Contractor LNTP (Limited Notice to Proceed):  Apr 2019
-- Project Complete:  Nov 2025

. . . . . . . .

I talked to the Chief Engineer and asked for some design details.

HRBT will be 8 lanes on 4 separate 2-lane roadways/tubes.
New tunnels will be bored with TBM.
HRBT existing marine bridges will be replaced.
Willoughby Bay bridges will be widened to 8 lanes.
The "driveable shoulder" will be a 12-foot left lane of full-depth pavement.
Two general purpose lanes each way between Mallory Street and I-564.
Two HOT lanes each way between Mallory Street and I-564, seamlessly connecting with 2-lane reversible roadway.
No major rehab of existing tunnels.  No addressing of increase of vertical clearance in westbound tube. (*)
No major upgrade of I-564 interchange. (*)
Mallory Street to I-664 widening will be a future project not yet studied.

(*) At least not in this particular project.
 

[sprjus4]

Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Expansion Project Procurement Update to Commonwealth Transportation Board Feb 19, 2019
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/feb/pres/1_hrbt.pdf

Excerpts:

Scope of HRBT Expansion Project
-- Settlers Landing in Hampton to I-564 Norfolk (10 Miles)
-- I-64 improvements include 6 lanes of highway + drivable shoulder and construction of 4 lane bridge/tunnel
-- New HRBT tunnels will serve Eastbound traffic
-- Existing HRBT tunnels will serve Westbound traffic
-- Design-Build Contract Value:  $3.3B
-- VDOT will pay for South Island Trestle Bridge Replacement Work (180 days option to identify funding sources)
-- Execute Comprehensive Agreement NLT (no later than):  Apr 15, 2019
-- Contractor LNTP (Limited Notice to Proceed):  Apr 2019
-- Project Complete:  Nov 2025

. . . . . . . .

I talked to the Chief Engineer and asked for some design details.

HRBT will be 8 lanes on 4 separate 2-lane roadways/tubes.
New tunnels will be bored with TBM.
HRBT existing marine bridges will be replaced.
Willoughby Bay bridges will be widened to 8 lanes.
The "driveable shoulder" will be a 12-foot left lane of full-depth pavement.
Two general purpose lanes each way between Mallory Street and I-564.
Two HOT lanes each way between Mallory Street and I-564, seamlessly connecting with 2-lane reversible roadway.
No major rehab of existing tunnels.  No addressing of increase of vertical clearance in westbound tube. (*)
No major upgrade of I-564 interchange. (*)
Mallory Street to I-664 widening will be a future project not yet studied.

(*) At least not in this particular project.

Do they plan on releasing technical drawings / schematics of the project?

Interesting about the westbound tube... so the HO/T lanes without trucks will have a higher clearance than the GP lanes with trucks... I don't see why the HO/T shoulder couldn't be a full time HO/T lane, or hell, if they're playing the shoulder game, why not give the GP lanes a shoulder lane as well? It would involve increasing the cross-section on the outside from a 12 foot shoulder to 14 foot or 16 foot, but worth it IMHO. The only issue is the tunnel - it'd have to be 3-lanes wide, instead of two, but I guess they didn't consider this as an option, and again, fled to more HO/T lanes. It would surely help with traffic congestion by adding another GP lane as well in the long run, but I guess it's too late. This could bite in 20 years.

[wriddle082]

So the new High Rise Bridge project, when completed, will only have tolls for the HO/T lanes?  Meaning it will still offer free lanes, unlike the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and Jordan and Veterans Memorial Bridges?

I'm working in Norfolk again this week, staying on the water in Virginia Beach, and crossed the High Rise last night around 7:30 despite Waze telling me to take the Downtown Tunnel for a $1.80 toll.

[Beltway]

So the new High Rise Bridge project, when completed, will only have tolls for the HO/T lanes?  Meaning it will still offer free lanes, unlike the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and Jordan and Veterans Memorial Bridges?

If they open as HOT and not HOV, they will be tolled.

Two general purpose lanes each way will remain toll-free.

I have been seeing that project on a near-weekly basis, and it is steadily coming together.

[sprjus4]

So the new High Rise Bridge project, when completed, will only have tolls for the HO/T lanes?  Meaning it will still offer free lanes, unlike the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and Jordan and Veterans Memorial Bridges?

If they open as HOT and not HOV, they will be tolled.

Two general purpose lanes each way will remain toll-free.

I have been seeing that project on a near-weekly basis, and it is steadily coming together.

As it's planned now, the lanes will only be HO/T during peak hours. Like the rest of the area HOV & HO/T lanes, they will be open to all traffic free of charge during off peak hours, weekends, and holidays, though will still be barrier separated.

[wriddle082]

So the new High Rise Bridge project, when completed, will only have tolls for the HO/T lanes?  Meaning it will still offer free lanes, unlike the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and Jordan and Veterans Memorial Bridges?

If they open as HOT and not HOV, they will be tolled.

Two general purpose lanes each way will remain toll-free.

I have been seeing that project on a near-weekly basis, and it is steadily coming together.

Indeed, I passed through last month also and I think it's made progress since then.  I would suspect that beams will start to be laid across the finished piers in the very near future.

Will probably be making more semi-regular trips to Norfolk for work in the future, since one particular customer site has been moved from our NE installation manager to our SE installation manager, due to customer reps preferring mine and my co-worker's work and the closest person in the NE installation group perpetually tied up with work in MD.

[74/171FAN]

So the new High Rise Bridge project, when completed, will only have tolls for the HO/T lanes?  Meaning it will still offer free lanes, unlike the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and Jordan and Veterans Memorial Bridges?

If they open as HOT and not HOV, they will be tolled.

Two general purpose lanes each way will remain toll-free.

I have been seeing that project on a near-weekly basis, and it is steadily coming together.

As it's planned now, the lanes will only be HO/T during peak hours. Like the rest of the area HOV & HO/T lanes, they will be open to all traffic free of charge during off peak hours, weekends, and holidays, though will still be barrier separated.

I had not been keeping close eyes on this, but it seems to me that they must not want to charge those traveling to the Outer Banks.  (even though VA 168 gets them already)

[sprjus4]

So the new High Rise Bridge project, when completed, will only have tolls for the HO/T lanes?  Meaning it will still offer free lanes, unlike the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and Jordan and Veterans Memorial Bridges?

If they open as HOT and not HOV, they will be tolled.

Two general purpose lanes each way will remain toll-free.

I have been seeing that project on a near-weekly basis, and it is steadily coming together.

As it's planned now, the lanes will only be HO/T during peak hours. Like the rest of the area HOV & HO/T lanes, they will be open to all traffic free of charge during off peak hours, weekends, and holidays, though will still be barrier separated.

I had not been keeping close eyes on this, but it seems to me that they must not want to charge those traveling to the Outer Banks.  (even though VA 168 gets them already)

One of the potential options was looking at "maximizing revenue on peak weekends" , so there's is a chance peak weekend HO/T tolling may be implemented later on, but as of now it is not a thing.

That $8 peak weekend toll on the Expressway definitely grabs the tourists, at least the ones who aren't smart enough to take parallel 6-mile Battlefield Blvd, though it's only going to the city of Chesapeake and helping to repay debt on the Expressway and Dominion Blvd. The two toll roads merged into one operation and revenue collected on both facilities goes to repay debt on the two. There's no profit made from the toll road, at least that's publicly announced.

[sprjus4]

An update was provided to the TTAC today on the proposed Segment 2 of the HO/T lane network stretching between I-264 and I-464.

The current plan calls for converting the existing HOV lane each way into HO/T by installing toll gantries, assosaiated signage, and a 4 foot barrier.

The project is slated to cost $32 million.

Construction could begin by July 2020 and be open to traffic by December 2021, around the time the I-64 High Rise Bridge HO/T lanes will be opened between I-464 and Bowers Hill. This would complete a substantial portion of the proposed network by the end of 2021, providing continuous lanes for 23 miles.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P13-Regional_Express_Lanes_Network_Update.pdf



Here are some issues I see with this project. In my opinion, it's being done on the cheap, and not being fully built out. I believe ultimately there needs to be 2 lanes each way utilizing there "part time shoulder" concept (IMO, I say nix the shoulder and just make it a full time HO/T lane on all the areas they are proposing this, many urban areas have this configuration with no issues). Secondly, direct connectors between I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South, and between VA-168 North and I-64 East are needed. These are two major movements, and the interchange is already substandard as it is. If the current HO/T lanes are any indication with high usage, there will be heavy traffic loads dumping out of the HO/T lanes 1-2 miles prior to the Oak Grove Interchange trying to weave 3-4 lanes over just to make the exit, and the same will be true people getting on I-64 East then trying to get over 2-3 lanes to enter the HO/T lanes. Then there's the issue that the interchange already congests heading from I-64 East to VA-168 / US-17 South for 1-2 miles, so you dump them into congestion, usually with the left lanes flowing and the right lanes parked because of the narrow, substandard weaving cloverleaf bound to VA-168 / US-17 South. They are underestimating the traffic load that will use these lanes during peak hours, and ultimately I feel it's just going to make congestion even worse than it is at the Oak Grove Interchange, and the HO/T lanes will be packed with the heavy load using the lanes down to 1 lane for 7 miles.

They are reconstructing the entire freeway on the Hampton side to accommodate 2 HO/T lanes each way, and are proposing direct connectors at I-564. The same needs to hold true for Segment 2 as well. Delay the project for a couple of years, put it through a NEPA study as the other phases involving major construction are getting, and then come back with a high-capacity project that will actually work.

[sprjus4]

So the new High Rise Bridge project, when completed, will only have tolls for the HO/T lanes?  Meaning it will still offer free lanes, unlike the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and Jordan and Veterans Memorial Bridges?

If they open as HOT and not HOV, they will be tolled.

Two general purpose lanes each way will remain toll-free.

I have been seeing that project on a near-weekly basis, and it is steadily coming together.

As it's planned now, the lanes will only be HO/T during peak hours. Like the rest of the area HOV & HO/T lanes, they will be open to all traffic free of charge during off peak hours, weekends, and holidays, though will still be barrier separated.

Looking back at this 5 years later... yeah this changed. 24/7 tolling in effect on the entire system (including the previously free outside-peak-hours reversible lanes in Norfolk), and as a result is virtually empty outside of peak hours. I'm not sure why they decided it was a good idea to toll / restrict outside of rush hours when they never previously did.

The only added "benefit" is the 65 mph speed limit (compared to 60 mph), which half the time is moot. They ought to increase all the lanes to 65 mph.

[Beltway]

So the new High Rise Bridge project, when completed, will only have tolls for the HO/T lanes?  Meaning it will still offer free lanes, unlike the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and Jordan and Veterans Memorial Bridges?

If they open as HOT and not HOV, they will be tolled.
Two general purpose lanes each way will remain toll-free.
I have been seeing that project on a near-weekly basis, and it is steadily coming together.

As it's planned now, the lanes will only be HO/T during peak hours. Like the rest of the area HOV & HO/T lanes, they will be open to all traffic free of charge during off peak hours, weekends, and holidays, though will still be barrier separated.

Looking back at this 5 years later... yeah this changed. 24/7 tolling in effect on the entire system (including the previously free outside-peak-hours reversible lanes in Norfolk), and as a result is virtually empty outside of peak hours. I'm not sure why they decided it was a good idea to toll / restrict outside of rush hours when they never previously did.
The only added "benefit" is the 65 mph speed limit (compared to 60 mph), which half the time is moot. They ought to increase all the lanes to 65 mph.

The new High-Rise Bridge is a huge improvement. I have been using I-64 in Chesapeake regularly since 2019, including trips in peak hours.

The original bridge could quickly back up during peak hours.

Peak hours thru the widened highway, the HOT lane is heavily used when I pass thru there. Heavy as in close to full capacity uncongested.

Outside of peak hours they are lightly used but the toll is low enough (a dollar or less between the two I-264 junctions) that I normally use it.

[sprjus4]

So the new High Rise Bridge project, when completed, will only have tolls for the HO/T lanes?  Meaning it will still offer free lanes, unlike the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and Jordan and Veterans Memorial Bridges?

If they open as HOT and not HOV, they will be tolled.
Two general purpose lanes each way will remain toll-free.
I have been seeing that project on a near-weekly basis, and it is steadily coming together.

As it's planned now, the lanes will only be HO/T during peak hours. Like the rest of the area HOV & HO/T lanes, they will be open to all traffic free of charge during off peak hours, weekends, and holidays, though will still be barrier separated.

Looking back at this 5 years later... yeah this changed. 24/7 tolling in effect on the entire system (including the previously free outside-peak-hours reversible lanes in Norfolk), and as a result is virtually empty outside of peak hours. I'm not sure why they decided it was a good idea to toll / restrict outside of rush hours when they never previously did.
The only added "benefit" is the 65 mph speed limit (compared to 60 mph), which half the time is moot. They ought to increase all the lanes to 65 mph.

The new High-Rise Bridge is a huge improvement. I have been using I-64 in Chesapeake regularly since 2019, including trips in peak hours.

The original bridge could quickly back up during peak hours.

Peak hours thru the widened highway, the HOT lane is heavily used when I pass thru there. Heavy as in close to full capacity uncongested.

Outside of peak hours they are lightly used but the toll is low enough (a dollar or less between the two I-264 junctions) that I normally use it.

No disagreement here. Even during peak hours, the toll is often very low.

I do feel there is a lot of unused pavement in this area - 14 to 16 foot of left shoulder and 4 foot for the buffer - that I do wonder how much better the highway would be operationally had they striped it as 8 lanes. With 83,000-91,000 AADT I feel any remaining congestion would be virtually eliminated. It still does exist during peak hours, particularly near Military Hwy and the High Rise Bridge. Sure the HO/T lanes have utilization, but 8 lanes would certainly be a more substantial improvement for all traffic and would easily handle capacity growth for the next 20-30 years.

Similar roadways in the area that have operated well with high volumes and 8 lanes:

- I-64 between I-464 and I-264 in Norfolk carries over 130,000 AADT and prior to HO/T conversion, never had any congestion issues even in peak hours.
- I-64 on the Peninsula carries over 150,000 AADT in spots and never suffers congestion issues with 8 lanes.
- I-264 between Downtown Norfolk and Military Hwy carries over 100,000 AADT and flows well between the Downtown area and the US-13 interchange. Likewise, it carries 140,000 AADT east of VA-225 Independence Blvd and moves well. In both cases, traffic normally moves 65+ mph (55 speed limit).

In addition to that, I also question the policy change to toll outside of peak hours. And not just in this segment (Bowers Hill to I-464) but for the rest of the system. I feel that it has made the lanes significantly underutilized in those times and added more traffic to the mainline that did not previously exist. While the traffic still moves, it can get dense quickly and the lanes remain empty. Low toll or not, it's significantly underutilized space that was previously available for all traffic with no charge and is now virtually abandoned.

I'm not sure what the issue with 7-9am and 4-6pm restrictions were, or even the expanded 5-9am and 2-6pm restrictions they put on the reversible lanes when they were first tolled (before switching to 24/7).

[Beltway]

I do feel there is a lot of unused pavement in this area - 14 to 16 foot of left shoulder and 4 foot for the buffer - that I do wonder how much better the highway would be operationally had they striped it as 8 lanes. With 83,000-91,000 AADT I feel any remaining congestion would be virtually eliminated. It still does exist during peak hours, particularly near Military Hwy and the High Rise Bridge. Sure the HO/T lanes have utilization, but 8 lanes would certainly be a more substantial improvement for all traffic and would easily handle capacity growth for the next 20-30 years.

The new High-Rise Bridge is wide enough to handle six 12-foot lanes and minimal shoulders when the original bridge is being replaced in the future. That is why it has the extra currently unused width.

The rest of I-64 that was recently widened I-264 to I-464 has the 4th future lane in most places but not all. Now used as a 12-foot shoulder. It would not have any shoulder if used as a traffic lane now. So there is a benefit in having a modern 12 foot shoulder that will be usable for a traffic lane in the future.

The old overpass bridge at Great Bridge Blvd. will have to be replaced before 4 lanes each way and shoulders can be built thru there.

In addition to that, I also question the policy change to toll outside of peak hours. And not just in this segment (Bowers Hill to I-464) but for the rest of the system. I feel that it has made the lanes significantly underutilized in those times and added more traffic to the mainline that did not previously exist. While the traffic still moves, it can get dense quickly and the lanes remain empty. Low toll or not, it's significantly underutilized space that was previously available for all traffic with no charge and is now virtually abandoned.

That overstates as some traffic does use it. My experience on the I-95 and I-495 HOT lanes is that even in the lowest traffic periods there could be a major incident arise, and the HOT lanes have a low cost but ensure that you have little or no chance of being delayed. Also you don't have to deal with trucks. The I-95 and I-395 HOT lanes have the feel of being on a rural Interstate highway with widely spaced interchanges and with no trucks -- I like that -- and that is 35 miles of highway.

So even at 2:00 am I would normally use the HOT lanes. I see others doing the same.

The Hampton Roads Express Lanes (HREL) on I-64 operate with tolls 24/7, even during off-peak hours, for several reasons:

The toll system helps regulate traffic flow and maintain consistent travel times, even when congestion is low.

Revenue from tolls supports ongoing maintenance, operational costs, and future improvements to the express lanes.

Keeping tolls active at all times ensures drivers always know the rules, rather than switching between free and tolled periods.

Vehicles with two or more occupants can still use the lanes for free.

Even though traffic is lighter during off-peak hours, the toll system remains in place to fund infrastructure and maintain reliability.

[sprjus4]

The rest of I-64 that was recently widened I-264 to I-464 has the 4th future lane in most places but not all. Now used as a 12-foot shoulder. It would not have any shoulder if used as a traffic lane now. So there is a benefit in having a modern 12 foot shoulder that will be usable for a traffic lane in the future.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the shoulder is around 14 ft in width, to accommodate a future 12 foot part time lane and a 2 foot shoulder. Add in the 4 ft for the buffer, and the regular 12 foot HO/T lane.

That is 30 ft of pavement for a single express lane. You could stripe two 12 foot lanes and a 6 foot shoulder in its place, and carry a lot more traffic with no HO/T restriction, as is done (or was done prior to other conversions) on the aforementioned I-64 and I-264 segments that carry much higher volumes.

The old overpass bridge at Great Bridge Blvd. will have to be replaced before 4 lanes each way and shoulders can be built thru there.

That bridge was replaced apart of the most recent project, and is wide enough underneath to accommodate an 8 lane cross section (proposed future Phase 2 that replaces the existing High Rise Bridge) along with a new flyover ramp from VA-168 / US-17 North.

That overstates as some traffic does use it.

Not enough to justify tolling it. I've driven through that area many times during off peak hours, particularly the 8 lane portion east of I-464 going toward Virginia Beach and Norfolk. Those lanes are virtually empty every time I've been through there outside of rush hour. They get slightly more usage off peak over the High Rise Bridge, but still nothing crazy. You'd get significantly more throughput unrestricting them, or outright removing them like mentioned above. The goal should be moving more traffic in the overall system, not exclusively giving the express lanes a perfect ride.

I would be curious to know the traffic volumes for off peak hours on an hour-by-hour basis, for both the express lanes and the general purpose lanes. From my own experience, they cannot be high enough to justify listing a toll rate above $0.00.

My experience on the I-95 and I-495 HOT lanes is that even in the lowest traffic periods there could be a major incident arise, and the HOT lanes have a low cost but ensure that you have little or no chance of being delayed. Also you don't have to deal with trucks. The I-95 and I-395 HOT lanes have the feel of being on a rural Interstate highway with widely spaced interchanges and with no trucks -- I like that -- and that is 35 miles of highway.

That is I-95 and I-395, not I-64. With the single lane design on I-64, I've found it more reliable during off peak hours to stay in the general purpose lanes. I seem to always luck out getting stuck behind one person doing 55-60 mph in the express lane and no way to pass for miles. The regular lanes often move quicker or the same, and allow passing. Trucks are not really a factor on I-64.

If there's ever an incident on the mainline, they often shut the express lane down. It rarely is actually helpful.

The toll system helps regulate traffic flow and maintain consistent travel times, even when congestion is low.

If congestion is low, there shouldn't be any issues with managing flow. It was never an issue with the previous system on the I-64 reversible lanes that opened them during off peak hours for free, why is it now?

Revenue from tolls supports ongoing maintenance, operational costs, and future improvements to the express lanes.

Which are funded through the HRTAC (High Rise Bridge project, HRBT, other express lanes projects, etc.) which is funded with tax dollars.

Keeping tolls active at all times ensures drivers always know the rules, rather than switching between free and tolled periods.

What rules are you changing? The toll is either $5.00, $0.40 or it's $0.00. If there is no traffic, the toll should be $0.00 to reflect that. No rules change, a rate is displayed and charged. Whether $5.00, $0.40, or $0.00.

The price dynamically changes based on demand all the time, if anything that's more confusing to drivers than switching from $0.00 to any higher toll rate.

This was never an issue with the previous system on the I-64 reversible lanes that opened them during off peak hours for free, why is it now?

[Beltway]

The old overpass bridge at Great Bridge Blvd. will have to be replaced before 4 lanes each way and shoulders can be built thru there.

That bridge was replaced apart of the most recent project, and is wide enough underneath to accommodate an 8 lane cross section (proposed future Phase 2 that replaces the existing High Rise Bridge) along with a new flyover ramp from VA-168 / US-17 North.

Oh OK -- it is the I-464 bridges.

Not enough to justify tolling it. I've driven through that area many times during off peak hours, particularly the 8 lane portion east of I-464 going toward Virginia Beach and Norfolk. Those lanes are virtually empty every time I've been through there outside of rush hour.

Well the GP lanes have very low traffic at those times as well.

With the single lane design on I-64, I've found it more reliable during off peak hours to stay in the general purpose lanes. I seem to always luck out getting stuck behind one person doing 55-60 mph in the express lane and no way to pass for miles. The regular lanes often move quicker or the same, and allow passing. Trucks are not really a factor on I-64

My experience is different -- vehicles rarely go less than 65 mph, and most go around 70.

If someone wants to go well below the speed limit, I will flash highs and if that doesn't work give them the horn.

But that is rare.

If there's ever an incident on the mainline, they often shut the express lane down. It rarely is actually helpful.

Not my experience on I-495. Incidents on the mainline rarely cause any shutdown on the HOT.

I don't see why it would be any different on I-64.

Of course incidents widely vary in size and number of lanes affected.

Revenue from tolls supports ongoing maintenance, operational costs, and future improvements to the express lanes.

Which are funded through the HRTAC (High Rise Bridge project, HRBT, other express lanes projects, etc.) which is funded with tax dollars.

And tolls. They have just begun the last year.

That is part of how they will raise billions for future projects.

CBA 9 is still in the long range plan and that was estimated at $13 billion in 2022.

Keeping tolls active at all times ensures drivers always know the rules, rather than switching between free and tolled periods.

What rules are you changing? The toll is either $5.00, $0.40 or it's $0.00. If there is no traffic, the toll should be $0.00 to reflect that. No rules change, a rate is displayed and charged. Whether $5.00, $0.40, or $0.00.

Zero is not a toll. At 8:00 pm this evening the toll was $0.75 for the entire section between the two I-264 interchanges. Not much at all.

Single lane HOT is a new concept to me. I have not fully decided yet what I want to see happen.

Single lane HOV is different in that there are no delineators preventing changing lanes.

If it doesn't work out there is no law or rule or FHWA regulation that will prevent VDOT from making all lanes GP. Just changes in the line striping and signing.

[sprjus4]

Well the GP lanes have very low traffic at those times as well.

If the traffic volumes and demand for the lane determine the toll rate, the toll rate would fall to $0.00 if there wasn't a price minimum set.

My experience is different -- vehicles rarely go less than 65 mph, and most go around 70.

Could be bad luck then maybe. I once was stuck behind an HRT bus going 60 mph and struggled to get up the High Rise Bridge pushing 55 mph. Me and about 8 other cars stacked up behind.

Early on when the lanes opened, I witnessed a vehicle passing on the shoulder. It seems it became enough of an issue they since have installed several signs saying not to do this.

Not my experience on I-495. Incidents on the mainline rarely cause any shutdown on the HOT.

I don't see why it would be any different on I-64.

Of course incidents widely vary in size and number of lanes affected.

The difference is the width of the interstate. On I-495 you have 4 general purse lanes at its smallest points, and 2 express. On I-64, the general purpose lanes certainly are tighter (no left shoulder at all) and only 2 lanes. Even a medium sized accident can affect all 3 lanes, especially if the police use the lanes and then park in them.

Zero is not a toll. At 8:00 pm this evening the toll was $0.75 for the entire section between the two I-264 interchanges. Not much at all.

I've encountered this one on I-295 in Jacksonville FL several times.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/9DCKHDZCdbFEkPiw5

If VDOT displaying "No Toll Open to All Traffic" is too confusing, then they could display something similar to this.

Single lane HOT is a new concept to me. I have not fully decided yet what I want to see happen.

In my opinion, it's just a cheap way out. I'm not understanding this "1 HO/T lane + 1 part time shoulder HO/T lane" that the HRTPO has endorsed for most of the network. Just build it out to 2 express lanes in each direction to allow passing slower vehicles. If you're paying a toll to use the lanes, you shouldn't be at the mercy of the driver in front for several miles. In addition, having 2 lanes allows significantly more capacity and better operation.

Another thing, on the cheap, I've noticed with these new lanes is a lack of direct connectors, specifically to VA-168 / US-17.

Another example of going the cheap way:
In Norfolk, they're currently constructing "part-time shoulder express lanes" along the mainline. Essentially, they're shifting the right shoulder to the left side, and will it open it up in the off-peak direction while the reversible lanes handle the peak direction.

There will be no delineators between the lane and the general purpose lanes, and the right shoulder on the GP lanes of that 7-8 mile segment between I-264 and I-564 will be permanently reduced from 10 ft to 2 ft.

A proper design would properly delineate the HO/T lane from thru traffic, allow 2 lanes in each direction, and at minimum reconstruct and widen the right shoulder to the minimum 10 ft required. It seems to me this is going to be a safety hazard and a mess with 3 lanes and no shoulder, especially should a wreck or breakdown occur.

[Beltway]

My experience is different -- vehicles rarely go less than 65 mph, and most go around 70.

Could be bad luck then maybe. I once was stuck behind an HRT bus going 60 mph and struggled to get up the High Rise Bridge pushing 55 mph. Me and about 8 other cars stacked up behind.

That hasn't happened to me yet. But of course anything is possible. The bus drivers should be trained to maintain the speed limit.

Early on when the lanes opened, I witnessed a vehicle passing on the shoulder. It seems it became enough of an issue they since have installed several signs saying not to do this.

It is 12 feet wide, so there is a way to get around a really slow moving or stopped vehicle.

The difference is the width of the interstate. On I-495 you have 4 general purse lanes at its smallest points, and 2 express. On I-64, the general purpose lanes certainly are tighter (no left shoulder at all) and only 2 lanes. Even a medium sized accident can affect all 3 lanes, especially if the police use the lanes and then park in them.

Neither one has a left shoulder for GP with those delineators.

Zero is not a toll. At 8:00 pm this evening the toll was $0.75 for the entire section between the two I-264 interchanges. Not much at all.

I've encountered this one on I-295 in Jacksonville FL several times.

I just don't see anything worth complaining about.

Another example of going the cheap way:
In Norfolk, they're currently constructing "part-time shoulder express lanes" along the mainline. Essentially, they're shifting the right shoulder to the left side, and will it open it up in the off-peak direction while the reversible lanes handle the peak direction.

Remember what I said about the initial designs for HRBT and the widening project in Hampton? The final designs were full use lanes with no shoulder running. I hope and trust that the same will happen on the rest of the  HREL projects.

[sprjus4]

I just don't see anything worth complaining about.

The reversible lanes, built in the 1990s, were restricted between 7-9am and 4-6pm. They were open to all other traffic for free and no restriction for 30 years.

A few years ago, they implemented the first segment of HO/T lane and expanded the hours to 5-9am and 2-6pm. That alone was already unpopular with commuters. But it still remained free outside of that time, and on the weekends.

Then last year, they silently began 24/7 tolling. After 35 years of toll free and restriction free most of the day.

Likewise, when they were constructing the HO/T lanes over the High Rise Bridge, they told people it would be free outside of peak hours and open to all traffic. I attended the public hearings at the time. I mentioned that earlier in this thread from my post 5 years ago.

They were also supposed to construct a part time general purpose shoulder running lane between US-17 George Washington Hwy and I-464, over the High Rise Bridge, to provide 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HO/T lane in each direction during peak hours. I-264 in Virginia Beach currently has a system similar to this, providing 5 lanes in the peak direction.

That, likewise, silently changed. No public input, no announcement, no feedback, nothing.

Advertising a project to the public at public meetings in one way - saying toll free outside of peak hours - and then changing it to tolling 24/7 after the project is under construction is not a good look and certainly is not popular with motorists who travel in this area and use these roads on a daily basis. A reason these lanes are virtually empty outside of peak hours.

Again, if dynamic pricing is using traffic conditions to justify toll rates, then it would be set at $0.00 for a large portion of the day and on weekends when traffic is lighter.

Anyways, that's my viewpoint on the matter. Moving on now...

Remember what I said about the initial designs for HRBT and the widening project in Hampton? The final designs were full use lanes with no shoulder running. I hope and trust that the same will happen on the rest of the  HREL projects.

The issue is these projects are already under construction, at least the portion closer to I-564. The remainder to I-264 will begin construction in late 2025 / early 2026.

Over $400 million is being invested to construct off peak shoulder lanes (they will marked as closed when the reversible lanes are traveling the same direction) that will likely have low utilization - or high violations with users jumping in and out of them, due to the lack of any delineators. I'm not even sure there will be enough room to stripe proper double solid lines. Additionally, that project will permanently remove the right breakdown lane.

Another major safety concern I have, specifically due to the lack of delineators, is when congestion is on the mainline and vehicles in the express lane are blowing by at 60+ mph. Nothing is preventing someone from "cutting in" to the express lane from a standstill and causing a crash.

Or, drivers will slow in the express lane to cautiously passed stopped traffic (as any good defensive driver would, anticipating someone would cut in front of them from a standstill), which lowers the speed and effectiveness in the express lane.

I'm intrigued by the idea of these shoulder running lanes, but the lack of any separation is a major concern.

https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/major-projects/64expresslanes/about-hrel/norfolk-segment-1b/

https://youtu.be/dBlWR99yw_g

[Beltway]

I just don't see anything worth complaining about.

The reversible lanes, built in the 1990s, were restricted between 7-9am and 4-6pm. They were open to all other traffic for free and no restriction for 30 years.

So? Same with the I-95/I-395 reversible lanes. Now they have a low toll (especially in the case of I-64) and on I-64 it is HOT-2 so if you have a passenger you ride for free.

I have used the I-64 reversible roadway since HOT-2 and the off-peak toll was low, like less than $1.00.

If they have times with $0.00 tolls then there is the issue of what to do with vehicles with no EZPass transponder. If there is toll at all times it simplifies the regulation of the lanes.

With me this is a non-issue. I have been using RMA tolls since I have lived here, and now about 30 times a month, and with EZPass direct draft it is easy and simply part of the cost of driving.

They were also supposed to construct a part time general purpose shoulder running lane between US-17 George Washington Hwy and I-464, over the High Rise Bridge, to provide 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HO/T lane in each direction during peak hours. I-264 in Virginia Beach currently has a system similar to this, providing 5 lanes in the peak direction.

Not a design that I would approve of.

That, likewise, silently changed. No public input, no announcement, no feedback, nothing.

So? All the roadway needed is now there and it would just be a matter of changing lines, signs and rules.

Remember what I said about the initial designs for HRBT and the widening project in Hampton? The final designs were full use lanes with no shoulder running. I hope and trust that the same will happen on the rest of the  HREL projects.

The issue is these projects are already under construction, at least the portion closer to I-564. The remainder to I-264 will begin construction in late 2025 / early 2026.

Norfolk Segment 1A is short and in the transition area of I-64/I-564.
Norfolk Segment 1B is the long segment and is still in design.

Unlike the Hampton segment HREL Segment 4C unfortunately they don't have a simple plan view of the design, maybe because it is not complete. The delineators have not been designed either so I would not suggest that there will be none. HOT installations everywhere seem to insist on having them so that traffic cannot change lanes.

[sprjus4]

So? Same with the I-95/I-395 reversible lanes. Now they have a low toll (especially in the case of I-64) and on I-64 it is HOT-2 so if you have a passenger you ride for free.

And my opinion on the I-95 / I-395 lanes remains the same as my opinion for the I-64 lanes.

If they have times with $0.00 tolls then there is the issue of what to do with vehicles with no EZPass transponder. If there is toll at all times it simplifies the regulation of the lanes.

If it is $0.00, there's no charge period. Again, how it used to be when the first segment of tolling went online before COVID, up until they switched it to 24/7. It was pretty straight forward.

Not a design that I would approve of.

The same design used on I-264?

Norfolk Segment 1A is short and in the transition area of I-64/I-564.

Correct, and the design for that segment lacks any right shoulder. Additionally, the on-ramp from VA-168 North Tidewater Drive merges into the express lane, because they did not want to remove it or relocate it.

Norfolk Segment 1B is the long segment and is still in design.

Unlike the Hampton segment HREL Segment 4C unfortunately they don't have a simple plan view of the design, maybe because it is not complete. The delineators have not been designed either so I would not suggest that there will be none. HOT installations everywhere seem to insist on having them so that traffic cannot change lanes.

There was a public hearing a few years ago regarding the segment, and schematics of the proposed design along with cross sections were provided. They are not currently available on VDOT's website, though they are accessible via archive.org along with the files.

Typical section, showcasing the minimal 2 ft shoulder and lack of separation between the lanes:


A snip from one of aerial schematics, showing the lack of any real shoulder (the minimal shoulder provided is marked in brown) or separation between the lanes:


Another snip from one of the aerial schematics:


Here is the archived website, where you can view all of the plans in depth: https://web.archive.org/web/20211202021559/https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hampton_roads/virtual_public_involvement_i-64_hampton_roads_express_lanes_norfolk_segment_1a-1b.asp

Their active website indicates they held a public meeting but in order to access the documents you need to contact them (something VDOT has done with a number of their projects recently for some reason, something I haven't seen any other agency do). Thankfully, they were archived online.

I certainly hope something changes design-wise and you are correct, otherwise this is what we're getting. For context, this is how wide a 2 ft shoulder is, and how wide the current shoulder is.

--

Edit: Additionally, you can see more detailed schematics and engineering plans, cross-sections, etc. from Allan Myers' Technical Proposal to VDOT from August 2022, the company that was awarded the bid for the project. This covers Segment A between I-564 and VA-168 Tidewater Drive.

It similarly confirms the 2 ft shoulder and lack of delination between the express lanes and the general purpose lanes: https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/doing-business/business-opportunities/alternative-project-delivery/tech-proposals/Myers-C00117840DB112_I-64_1A_Technical.pdf

[Beltway]

Edit: Additionally, you can see more detailed schematics and engineering plans, cross-sections, etc. from Allan Myers' Technical Proposal to VDOT from August 2022, the company that was awarded the bid for the project. This covers Segment A between I-564 and VA-168 Tidewater Drive.
It similarly confirms the 2 ft shoulder and lack of delination between the express lanes and the general purpose lanes: https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/doing-business/business-opportunities/alternative-project-delivery/tech-proposals/Myers-C00117840DB112_I-64_1A_Technical.pdf

As you can see it is a -proposal- from 3 years ago. The images you posted are not clear enough to see what they are proposing. Sort of ... but scale is too large.

I reiterate my comments that it is not clearly stated as to what the final design will look like.

Addition: The only current "part time shoulder running" is on the VA-44 portion of I-264 and that goes back to the 1990s or maybe 1980s. Hopefully such a design is a thing of the past. Plus that is only in peak hours, there are lane control signals, and there are emergency pull-off bays.

[sprjus4]

Edit: Additionally, you can see more detailed schematics and engineering plans, cross-sections, etc. from Allan Myers' Technical Proposal to VDOT from August 2022, the company that was awarded the bid for the project. This covers Segment A between I-564 and VA-168 Tidewater Drive.
It similarly confirms the 2 ft shoulder and lack of delination between the express lanes and the general purpose lanes: https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/doing-business/business-opportunities/alternative-project-delivery/tech-proposals/Myers-C00117840DB112_I-64_1A_Technical.pdf

As you can see it is a -proposal- from 3 years ago. The images you posted are not clear enough to see what they are proposing. Sort of ... but scale is too large.

Right click and open the image in new tab to see it larger & clearer.

The cross section image clearly lists "2 ft" for the shoulder. Additionally, the mainline schematics quite clearly show minimal shoulder.

Plus that is only in peak hours, there are lane control signals, and there are emergency pull-off bays.

Correct, and that is what was proposed for the I-64 general purpose lanes between I-464 and US-17 George Washington Hwy initially.

That is also what is currently proposed for the part-time shoulder running express lanes on the I-464 to Bowers Hill portion, all of I-664, and these part-time off-peak shoulder running express lanes.

I believe the I-64 express lanes on the HRBT project between I-564 and the base of the bridge will also feature 1 lane plus a shoulder running lane, unless they changed that to be fully 2 HO/T each way all the way to I-564.