I-66 HO/T Lanes

[Beltway]

The HOT lanes begin/end at the US-29 interchange.
I-66 has 4 general purpose lanes each way extending west to the US-15 Haymarket interchange.
Current AADT on that section is 70 thousand. I don't think additional capacity is needed any time soon. But there is ample median space to add 2 lanes each way.

Does WMATA have any interest in keeping 44-ish-feet of that space open? Metro extensions ain't happening out there in my lifetime, but I'm wondering if they at least have a vested interest in keeping the ROW open in the exceedingly-unlikely chance they do extend the Orange Line (or something else idk) that far.

I measure 75 feet median width.

[Rothman]

I-95 south of DC is simply one of the worst drives in the U.S. [New York City is the worst]

Worst or expensive, or both. Yeesh. Glad I haven't been up that way in over a year.

I drive it regularly and it is a great drive because I use the express lanes between US-1 Massaponax and I-495 at 70 mph and it is worth every penny I spend on it.

Heh, because the general purpose lanes suck.

[Beltway]

I drive it regularly and it is a great drive because I use the express lanes between US-1 Massaponax and I-495 at 70 mph and it is worth every penny I spend on it.

Heh, because the general purpose lanes suck.

The general purpose lanes are fine. I showed what one of the solutions could have been and should be in the future -- I-97 Extended.

Here is another --


Virginia would participate but Maryland refuses to.

[sprjus4]

I drive it regularly and it is a great drive because I use the express lanes between US-1 Massaponax and I-495 at 70 mph and it is worth every penny I spend on it.

Heh, because the general purpose lanes suck.

The general purpose lanes are fine.

That is certainly an interesting take. They've gotten better... but the Occoquan River still continues to be a major bottleneck that VDOT will not address. The new "auxiliary lane" between VA-123 and Prince William Pkwy doesn't change the fact that the mainline still dumps from 4 to 3 lanes southbound, when the 4th lane should continue at least 1 or 2 more exits south.

I showed what one of the solutions could have been and should be in the future -- I-97 Extended.

Agreed. Oh well, at least US-17 acts a decent bypass for northwest-bound traffic.

[Rothman]

I drive it regularly and it is a great drive because I use the express lanes between US-1 Massaponax and I-495 at 70 mph and it is worth every penny I spend on it.

Heh, because the general purpose lanes suck.

The general purpose lanes are fine. I showed what one of the solutions could have been and should be in the future -- I-97 Extended.

Here is another --


Virginia would participate but Maryland refuses to.

If the general purpose lanes are fine, then you wouldn't have touted going 70 mph in the tolled lanes...

The general purpose lanes are not fine...

[Beltway]

Virginia would participate but Maryland refuses to.

If the general purpose lanes are fine, then you wouldn't have touted going 70 mph in the tolled lanes...
The general purpose lanes are not fine...

I-95 is a 21st century highway and would be a 2050 design -- if Maryland would get on board and do their part to build these bypasses.

All that traffic has to funnel down to the Capital Beltway to cross the Potomac River, so you can't just keep widening I-95. There needs to be a way to bypass Fairfax and Prince William counties with a superhighway bypass.

Here are two more missing bypasses that would provide major relief to parts of I-95 and I-495.

The "Techway" that would only involve building 12 miles of new freeway.


The river crossing at Chicamuxen MD which is one of the routes studied in the 1990  Washington Bypass Study by VDOT and MSHA.

[sprjus4]

While I agree you can't just widen I-95 to 20 lanes, some parts do need to be done:

At minimum, I-95 southbound needs to be widened to 4 lanes between VA-123 the Prince William Pkwy exit. This is mostly already done - you need to switch the lane configurations to allow the 4th southbound thru lane to connect with the new auxiliary lane, instead of the new auxiliary lane only connecting with the on-ramp from VA-123.

Further south, outside of the realm of Washington and previously proposed bypasses, there needs to be some 8 lane widening of I-95 north of Richmond, at least up to Ashland. There is significant traffic congestion in this corridor at least up to King's Dominion.

[Mapmikey]

The general purpose lanes are not adequate especially north of Fredericksburg. Try driving it northbound any weekday afternoon when the toll lanes are not available. There are multiple spots where it crawls, starting at SR 610 Garrisonville.

Also, the variable speed limits northbound approaching Fredericksburg suggests VDOT thinks it's not adequate there either.

[74/171FAN]

The general purpose lanes are not adequate especially north of Fredericksburg. Try driving it northbound any weekday afternoon when the toll lanes are not available. There are multiple spots where it crawls, starting at SR 610 Garrisonville.

Also, the variable speed limits northbound approaching Fredericksburg suggests VDOT thinks it's not adequate there either.

Yeah if I head to Northern Virginia on a Sunday Morning, I leave from the Hopewell area around 7 AM to be comfortable through there.

[Beltway]

The general purpose lanes are not adequate especially north of Fredericksburg. Try driving it northbound any weekday afternoon when the toll lanes are not available. There are multiple spots where it crawls, starting at SR 610 Garrisonville.
Also, the variable speed limits northbound approaching Fredericksburg suggests VDOT thinks it's not adequate there either.

OK, but I have explained repeatedly why they are congested like that. Not their fault. They would most likely be adequate if one of the outer Washington bypasses was built, and certainly would be if two were built.

I was at an astronomical skywatch convention at Staunton River State Park a couple months ago. I talked at length to a man from Frederick MD and he seemed rather knowledgeable about highway issues in the region.

He complained loudly about how Virginia had built several major highways to near the Potomac River, ready for extension into Maryland for some years now, but Maryland won't do anything to connect to them. He knows how they would provide regional traffic relief.

He also knows about the Western Transportation Corridor (the one I called I-93) that Virginia studied 20-25 years ago, but of which Maryland refused to study their section.

He also knows about the VA-207/US-301 corridor outer bypass (the one I called I-97)  that was in the 1990 Washington Bypass Study alternates, but of which Maryland refused to study their section.

Maryland has several major highways between Washington and Baltimore and northward. They help keep traffic to a more reasonable level.

Their corrupt highway policies are causing major problems in Virginia, as I have detailed, as I-95 is the only freeway south of Washington. The Potomac River itself is a major transportation barrier that needs more bridges.

Maryland doesn't seem to care as Virginia traffic does not impact their state directly.

I am fine with discussing I-95  as long as MARYLAND is identified as the chief problem.

While I agree you can't just widen I-95 to 20 lanes, some parts do need to be done:
At minimum, I-95 southbound needs to be widened to 4 lanes between VA-123 the Prince William Pkwy exit. This is mostly already done - you need to switch the lane configurations to allow the 4th southbound thru lane to connect with the new auxiliary lane, instead of the new auxiliary lane only connecting with the on-ramp from VA-123.

That project is nearing completion.

Further south, outside of the realm of Washington and previously proposed bypasses, there needs to be some 8 lane widening of I-95 north of Richmond, at least up to Ashland. There is significant traffic congestion in this corridor at least up to King's Dominion.

I found what looks like a draft 2045 long range plan map for the state. It would be unconstrained financially at this point.

It shows the I-95 local roadways ("C-D roadways") being extended south to 2 miles south of US-17 at Massaponax, and north to the VA-610 Garrisonville interchange. These extensions would be as two lane roadways. So that would make the current 3-lane roadways express and thus bypassing the interchanges. I could not tell if any new interchanges would be added, but VA-208 and southern US-17 would be nice, and feasible when connecting to the local roadways.
 
It shows 4 lanes each way between I-295 and where the local roadways would start.

Between Garrisonville and Woodbridge is a bit puzzling as they show a red line on I-95 which represents new Interstate highway construction. Maybe they are working up a plan to figure how to expand the Transurban segment.

But this means that all of I-95 would be expanded between I-295 and VA-123.

Unfortunately, this new capacity will be filled within 10 years if none of those outer bypasses are built.

[sprjus4]

OK, but I have explained repeatedly why they are congested like that. Not their fault. They would most likely be adequate if one of the outer Washington bypasses was built, and certainly would be if two were built.

I was at an astronomical skywatch convention at Staunton River State Park a couple months ago. I talked at length to a man from Frederick MD and he seemed rather knowledgeable about highway issues in the region.

He complained loudly about how Virginia had built several major highways to near the Potomac River, ready for extension into Maryland for some years now, but Maryland won't do anything to connect to them. He knows how they would provide regional traffic relief.

He also knows about the Western Transportation Corridor (the one I called I-93) that Virginia studied 20-25 years ago, but of which Maryland refused to study their section.

He also knows about the VA-207/US-301 corridor outer bypass (the one I called I-97)  that was in the 1990 Washington Bypass Study alternates, but of which Maryland refused to study their section.

Maryland has several major highways between Washington and Baltimore and northward. They help keep traffic to a more reasonable level.

Their corrupt highway policies are causing major problems in Virginia, as I have detailed, as I-95 is the only freeway south of Washington. The Potomac River itself is a major transportation barrier that needs more bridges.

Maryland doesn't seem to care as Virginia traffic does not impact their state directly.

I am fine with discussing I-95  as long as MARYLAND is identified as the chief problem.

Something I do wonder is why VDOT hasn't gone ahead and built their portions, or even studied them themselves in the last 20 years. All of these "studies" are 20+ years old. There hasn't been any push or movement by Virginia either since.

Sure, they wouldn't connect with an equivalent Maryland freeway / toll road, but they would still connect to existing crossings and still serve a significant amount of traffic nonetheless.

VA-207 / US-301 is an example. Maryland recently constructed a new Potomac River bridge on US-301. VDOT should construct a limited access facility between I-95 and that new bridge. Traffic volumes would likely increased, and overtime put more pressure on Maryland to address their side.

VDOT could also build a western bypass, connecting I-95 around Fredericksburg to I-66 west of Haymarket, roughly paralleling the US-17 corridor. This is entirely within Virginia and would not require any collaboration with Maryland. 

In the future, should Maryland show interest, they could extend that road northward to I-70. But just to I-66 would be a viable route in of itself.

I'm glad Virginia studied these routes 20+ years ago, but they need to show some action or push in the present day, which it doesn't appear they have. You can only fix I-95 so much.

While I agree you can't just widen I-95 to 20 lanes, some parts do need to be done:
At minimum, I-95 southbound needs to be widened to 4 lanes between VA-123 the Prince William Pkwy exit. This is mostly already done - you need to switch the lane configurations to allow the 4th southbound thru lane to connect with the new auxiliary lane, instead of the new auxiliary lane only connecting with the on-ramp from VA-123.

That project is nearing completion.

It was already completed a few years ago, then closed recently for another interchange improvement. But it doesn't matter - neither project extends the 4th lane, which is the main source of the bottleneck. It still drops from 4 to 3 lanes southbound just beyond the Occoquan River bridge. Any new lanes south of the VA-123 interchange originate from the VA-123 on-ramp and continues as an auxiliary lane.



As I look at afternoon traffic while typing this (around 5:30pm), the I-95 corridor is largely yellow to green between Woodbridge and south of Fredericksburg. Heavy, but mostly moving.

North of there, however, I-95 is between red and standstill between I-495 and the Occoquan River.

Further south, outside of the realm of Washington and previously proposed bypasses, there needs to be some 8 lane widening of I-95 north of Richmond, at least up to Ashland. There is significant traffic congestion in this corridor at least up to King's Dominion.

I found what looks like a draft 2045 long range plan map for the state. It would be unconstrained financially at this point.

It shows the I-95 local roadways ("C-D roadways") being extended south to 2 miles south of US-17 at Massaponax, and north to the VA-610 Garrisonville interchange. These extensions would be as two lane roadways. So that would make the current 3-lane roadways express and thus bypassing the interchanges. I could not tell if any new interchanges would be added, but VA-208 and southern US-17 would be nice, and feasible when connecting to the local roadways.

It shows 4 lanes each way between I-295 and where the local roadways would start.

Between Garrisonville and Woodbridge is a bit puzzling as they show a red line on I-95 which represents new Interstate highway construction. Maybe they are working up a plan to figure how to expand the Transurban segment.

But this means that all of I-95 would be expanded between I-295 and VA-123.

Unfortunately, this new capacity will be filled within 10 years if none of those outer bypasses are built.

This all sounds great. Curious, do you have a link to this map?

Unfortunately, none of these projects appear to be anywhere close to a priority or even a single thought. No studies, no projects proposed for funding, etc. The last thing I remember is VDOT rejecting the idea of any general purpose widening south of the Occoquan River to Fredericksburg, citing a very large $12 billion price tag, and dismissing it for any future study.

[Beltway]

I am fine with discussing I-95  as long as MARYLAND is identified as the chief problem.

Something I do wonder is why VDOT hasn't gone ahead and built their portions, or even studied them themselves in the last 20 years. All of these "studies" are 20+ years old. There hasn't been any push or movement by Virginia either since.

They already have -- VA-28, VA-286 at both ends, and VA-234. 10 years ago or more, and Maryland hasn't done squat.

VA-207 / US-301 is an example. Maryland recently constructed a new Potomac River bridge on US-301. VDOT should construct a limited access facility between I-95 and that new bridge. Traffic volumes would likely increased, and overtime put more pressure on Maryland to address their side.

See above – Maryland has proved that they won't do anything. MD US-301 has over 50 signals -- that is the main problem.

I wouldn't want Virginia to spend any money on a freeway there.

VDOT could also build a western bypass, connecting I-95 around Fredericksburg to I-66 west of Haymarket, roughly paralleling the US-17 corridor. This is entirely within Virginia and would not require any collaboration with Maryland.

That is part of the Western Transportation Corridor of 20-25 years ago. Virginia already has a group of "stealth beltways" out there, VA-234, VA-28, VA-123, VA-294, VA-286 – some ready to be extended into Maryland.

MARYLAND REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE 30 YEARS AND COUNTING

With their ridiculous unsafe and vulnerable Key Bridge proposal I don't trust their current highway agencies to make responsible decisions.

This all sounds great. Curious, do you have a link to this map?
Unfortunately, none of these projects appear to be anywhere close to a priority or even a single thought. No studies, no projects proposed for funding, etc. The last thing I remember is VDOT rejecting the idea of any general purpose widening south of the Occoquan River to Fredericksburg, citing a very large $12 billion price tag, and dismissing it for any future study.

That was 10 years ago in a questionable administration. I have tried to relocate that map but can't find it so far.

That is a good long range plan, though.

If VDOT and HRTAC can raise $3.8 billion for HRBT Expansion and several billion more for other projects, then the funding can be found. And move speedily at least by government standards.

[sprjus4]

That is part of the Western Transportation Corridor of 20-25 years ago. Virginia already has a group of "stealth beltways" out there, VA-234, VA-28, VA-123, VA-294, VA-286 – some ready to be extended into Maryland.

The issue with the "stealth beltways" is that, with the exception of VA-28, none of them are controlled access freeways. They have been, albeit slowly, upgraded piece by piece, but still a long ways off. They help to an extent for local and regional traffic, and surely has taken some load off of I-95, as well as I-495 and I-66, but not long distance traffic.

VDOT could construct a controlled access freeway between I-95 and I-66, between Fredericksburg and Haymarket, or as far out as Marshall, roughly following the US-17 corridor, with no collaboration necessary with Maryland. It would also take traffic off of a busy portion of US-29 and act as a bypass for that route.

A future extension designed to go north to I-70 should Maryland want to build their short portion - or even just tie into the existing US-340 freeway.

[Beltway]

That is part of the Western Transportation Corridor of 20-25 years ago. Virginia already has a group of "stealth beltways" out there, VA-234, VA-28, VA-123, VA-294, VA-286, VA-289 – some ready to be extended into Maryland.

The issue with the "stealth beltways" is that, with the exception of VA-28, none of them are controlled access freeways. They have been, albeit slowly, upgraded piece by piece, but still a long ways off. They help to an extent for local and regional traffic, and surely has taken some load off of I-95, as well as I-495 and I-66, but not long distance traffic.

All of these are on limited access right-of-way -- VA-286, VA-289, VA-234 and probably VA-294.

If you want to put pressure on Maryland (it may not do anything) start with upgrading VA-286 to full 6-lane freeway standards north of I-66. I count 13 at grade interchanges and it is mostly 4 lanes. That is a more direct and less impactful route to I-370 than from VA-28/VA-7.

It may be $1 billion or more but that is where I would put focus first.

These parkway-style belt routes would take a huge amount of regional traffic off of the main Interstate routes -- and those main Interstate routes would continue to serve long distance travel.

VDOT could construct a controlled access freeway between I-95 and I-66, between Fredericksburg and Haymarket, or as far out as Marshall, roughly following the US-17 corridor, with no collaboration necessary with Maryland. It would also take traffic off of a busy portion of US-29 and act as a bypass for that route.

At least 32 miles of new freeway and a low benefit route.

A future extension designed to go north to I-70 should Maryland want to build their short portion - or even just tie into the existing US-340 freeway.

I don't understand why Maryland would be considered interested.

And it would take another 31 miles of new freeway to reach Point of Rocks.

[Mapmikey]

All of these are on limited access right-of-way -- VA-286, VA-289, VA-234 and probably VA-294.

Only the Manassas bypass on VA 234 is limited access ROW.  At this point the southernmost 2+ miles to I-95 might require a new roadway.  VA 294 is an ordinary suburban arterial for several miles off I-95.  The more rural section after that to Manassas has few signals but has several subdivision accesses that have no other outlets.

Also, here is the I-95 corridor study that cites the $12B figure - https://web.archive.org/web/20220204155238/http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/cip/i-95_final_report_august2021.pdf

[Beltway]

All of these are on limited access right-of-way -- VA-286, VA-289, VA-234 and probably VA-294.

Only the Manassas bypass on VA 234 is limited access ROW.  At this point the southernmost 2+ miles to I-95 might require a new roadway.  VA 294 is an ordinary suburban arterial for several miles off I-95.  The more rural section after that to Manassas has few signals but has several subdivision accesses that have no other outlets.

VA-286 and VA-289 have limited access right-of-way. IOW built to expressway standards.

Also, here is the I-95 corridor study that cites the $12B figure - https://web.archive.org/web/20220204155238/http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/cip/i-95_final_report_august2021.pdf

Garbage study produced by the McAulliffe administration near the end of his term.

[Beltway]

All of these are on limited access right-of-way -- VA-286, VA-289, VA-234 and probably VA-294.

Only the Manassas bypass on VA 234 is limited access ROW.  At this point the southernmost 2+ miles to I-95 might require a new roadway.  VA 294 is an ordinary suburban arterial for several miles off I-95.  The more rural section after that to Manassas has few signals but has several subdivision accesses that have no other outlets.

VA-286 and VA-289 have limited access right-of-way. IOW built to expressway standards.

Also, here is the I-95 corridor study that cites the $12B figure - https://web.archive.org/web/20220204155238/http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/cip/i-95_final_report_august2021.pdf

Garbage study produced by the Ralph Northam administration near the end of his term.

That is a ridiculous figure.

[74/171FAN]

Also, here is the I-95 corridor study that cites the $12B figure - https://web.archive.org/web/20220204155238/http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/cip/i-95_final_report_august2021.pdf

This is the correct link to that report.  -Mark

[Rothman]

All of these are on limited access right-of-way -- VA-286, VA-289, VA-234 and probably VA-294.

Only the Manassas bypass on VA 234 is limited access ROW.  At this point the southernmost 2+ miles to I-95 might require a new roadway.  VA 294 is an ordinary suburban arterial for several miles off I-95.  The more rural section after that to Manassas has few signals but has several subdivision accesses that have no other outlets.

VA-286 and VA-289 have limited access right-of-way. IOW built to expressway standards.

Also, here is the I-95 corridor study that cites the $12B figure - https://web.archive.org/web/20220204155238/http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/cip/i-95_final_report_august2021.pdf

Garbage study produced by the Ralph Northam administration near the end of his term.

That is a ridiculous figure.

How so?

[Beltway]

Also, here is the I-95 corridor study that cites the $12B figure - https://web.archive.org/web/20220204155238/http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/cip/i-95_final_report_august2021.pdf

Garbage study produced by the Ralph Northam administration near the end of his term.
That is a ridiculous figure.

How so?

Quote:
  I-95 between Exit 118
(Thornburg) and Exit 170 (Springfield Interchange: I-95/I-395/I-495). This analysis showed
minor to no speed improvements in 2040 at a planning level cost estimate of more than
$12.5 billion for a single additional lane in each direction.

I have not heard any proposals to add lanes north of VA-123 Exit 160. So the "study" is already flawed.

What are "speed improvements?" There are capacity improvements of 33% when adding 1 lane to 3. That will accommodate more vehicles and reduce the length of congested periods. Without added capacity can lead to speed de-provements in the future.

Between Thornburg Exit 118 and VA-123 Exit 160 is 42 miles. Nearly all of that has median space to add a lane each way.

The 28 miles of I-64 GAP Widening (1 lane and full shoulder each way in the median) were estimated at an average of $27 million per mile and it looks like the awards are coming in at an average of $21 million per mile.

42 miles * $27 million = $1,134 million
42 miles * $21 million = $882 million

So in other words that I-95 "estimate" is 10 to 12 times over-exaggerated.
$297 million per mile on average. Yeah sure uh-huh.

===>>> FILE 13

[Rothman]

Exit 118 to 170?  Wouldn't that be 52 miles?  Looks like it goes all the way from Thornburg to the Beltway.

Something tells me the truth lies between Beltway's perspective and assumptions about available space and the $12.5B number.  I'd imagine one cause for the discrepancy is assumed needed bridge work to accommodate the widening.  Still, given the I-64 widening work mentioned, it's still hard to see the cost getting as high as $12.5B...

And then, there was that whole discussion about misinterpreting costs as presented by VDOT that we had recently (e.g., engineering versus total costs and the like...).  The study could be including all costs for the project and not just construction, which would also explain the gap...but still, $12.5B still seems more than needed...but Beltway's numbers based upon I-64's "costs" also seem low.

[sprjus4]

Exit 118 to 170?  Wouldn't that be 52 miles?  Looks like it goes all the way from Thornburg to the Beltway.

In order to achieve an 8 lane interstate highway, you only need to widen from Exit 118 to Exit 160. I'm not sure why their widening estimate went all the way to Exit 170, I-95 is already 8 lanes north of 160. Not to mention, there is hardly any available right of way, let alone any space, to widen that portion, it would be astronomically expensive. I do wonder what the breakdown of that $12 billion figure is, and if a large part of it is the Exit 160 to 170 stretch.

Transurban and VDOT are already planning to construct bi-directional HO/T lanes in this segment by widening the existing reversible roadway to 5 lanes with no shoulders (2+3 setup, with the middle lane switching directions with a movable barrier) which inevitably will require mainline widening (no lane addition) to allow more HO/T lane space. No idea on the cost estimate of that project though.

Looking at it further, while widening between Thornburg and Fredericksburg should be done, the focus at this point should be Woodbridge to the start of the Fredericksburg local / thru setup. This reduces the distance even further to just 25 miles - less than half than the 52 miles VDOT proposed.

Virtually all of that 25 mile distance has more than enough median space to accommodate an additional lane and shoulder in each direction - most places could handle two lanes added each way (not suggesting this, just giving an idea of the amount of space available).

I have a hunch VDOT quickly focused on the 52 mile segment, knowing it would produce an extremely large cost value (likely most of it north of Woodbridge), just to be able to dismiss it from further study to avoid having to widen mainline I-95 at all.

If they were interested, the project limits would realistically extend between north of Fredericksburg and Woodbridge, no further. Even at a high estimate of $100 million per mile, that is only $2.5 billion which is far more reasonable than $12 billion and certainly justifiable on a corridor of that magnitude and volume.

South of the Fredericksburg C/D lanes down to US-1 should be a separate project, and anything beyond that - while nice to have - is certainly a lower priority than anything north of there.

[sprjus4]

On an additional note, mods it might be best to split this into its own discussion about I-95 in Virginia.