I-66 HO/T Lanes

[sprjus4]

This reminds me of when VDOT and the HRTPO completed a study on the I-664 corridor a few years ago apart of the Bowers Hill interchange study.

They explicitly made one of the "purpose and needs" of the study: "Provide additional travel choice"

This allowed them to present the option to widen I-664 to six or eight general purpose lanes, then immediately dismiss it from any further study, citing "it doesn't meet the objective".

They then recommended the construction of a HO/T lane in each direction. They went into the study knowing they wanted express lanes on the corridor (despite the fact they are not necessary or should be the solution for that corridor), so they designed the study around that... instead of conducting a non-bias study and determining what truly is the best and viable long-term solution.

https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/hampton-roads-district/bowers-hill-interchange-improvements-study/

[Beltway]

This reminds me of when VDOT and the HRTPO completed a study on the I-664 corridor a few years ago apart of the Bowers Hill interchange study.

The favored alternative is adding 2 HOT lanes each way between an expanded Bowers Hill Interchange and VA-135 College Lane. That accounts for the estimate of over $500 million for that combined project.

The long range plan is to widen the rest of I-664 to 4 lanes each way.

[sprjus4]

This reminds me of when VDOT and the HRTPO completed a study on the I-664 corridor a few years ago apart of the Bowers Hill interchange study.

The favored alternative is adding 2 HOT lanes each way between an expanded Bowers Hill Interchange and VA-135 College Lane. That accounts for the estimate of over $500 million for that combined project.

1 HO/T lane in each direction, plus a part-time "drivable shoulder" in each direction, but yes.

https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/projects/hampton-roads/bowers-hill-interchange-improvements-study/Appendix_E_-_Bowers_Hill_Study_VDOT_Recommended_Preferred_Alternative_Public_Hearing_Comment_Summary_acc07282023_PM.pdf

That conclusion came without analyzing any general purpose alternatives - they essentially knew that was their preferred design before the study began and influenced the outcome by inserting "additional travel choices" into the study purpose.

That was my main reason for bringing this up as an example.

Their long term plan includes adding 2 HO/T lanes (or part time shoulder as they seem to prefer) in each direction for the remainder of the corridor all the way up to I-64. The existing general purpose lanes (2 each way from the MMMBT to Bowers Hill, and 3 each way north of there) would remain as is.

[Beltway]

The favored alternative is adding 2 HOT lanes each way between an expanded Bowers Hill Interchange and VA-135 College Lane. That accounts for the estimate of over $500 million for that combined project.

1 HO/T lane in each direction, plus a part-time "drivable shoulder" in each direction, but yes.

The were saying that on the 2.7 mile I-64 widening project between Mallory Street and LaSalle Ave., but the final design is 4 lanes each way with normal shoulders. These designs seem to advance in some cases.

I was opposed to HRBT expansion at first because the seeming decision was to add one 3-lane tube. That would result in 4 lanes WB and 3 lanes EB and it didn't seem to be worth all that money.

But as we see they are adding two 2-lane tubes and replacing the trestles, so that will result in 4 lanes each way.

That conclusion came without analyzing any general purpose alternatives - they essentially knew that was their preferred design before the study began and influenced the outcome by inserting "additional travel choices" into the study purpose.
Their long term plan includes adding 2 HO/T lanes (or part time shoulder as they seem to prefer) in each direction for the remainder of the corridor all the way up to I-64. The existing general purpose lanes (2 each way from the MMMBT to Bowers Hill, and 3 each way north of there) would remain as is.

They did offer that as one of the alternatives. I suspect that the final design will be something like that.

The VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program entry for that project has no money allocated yet for Right of Way (RW) and Construction (CN). So this is still in the future.

I go thru the Bowers Hill Interchange regularly, and even with that nice long 4-lane weaving section each way, traffic has built to the point where separating/eliminating the mixing bowl is needed.

More capacity has been added on I-64 in Chesapeake, and the freeway upgrade of US-58 between Suffolk and I-664 will be coming -- so that interchange will be seeing even more traffic.

HRBT Expansion will be a huge game-changer and will restore both bridge-tunnels back to normal levels. They can handle these volumes with minimal or no congestion. My predictions after --

2022    AADT
I-664 MMMBT    69,530
I-64 HRBT    83,098
US-17 JRB    29,000
    181,628
   
2027    AADT
I-664 MMMBT    52,000
I-64 HRBT    104,000
US-17 JRB    26,000
    182,000
   
2032-35    AADT
I-664 MMMBT    60,000
I-64 HRBT    120,000
US-17 JRB    30,000
    210,000

[Rothman]

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...

It's like the "study" that NYS DOT did on the Rye-Oyster Bay Long Island Sound crossing a few years ago, their "estimate" was $42 billion.

Basically designed to "prove" that it is not feasible.

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

[74/171FAN]

I am in a no-build status in regard to making changes here since we already have other Northern VA HOT lane threads; however, the Hampton Roads information (minus the HRBT which has its own thread) should be in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11915.0) moving forward.  -Mark

[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...

It's like the "study" that NYS DOT did on the Rye-Oyster Bay Long Island Sound crossing a few years ago, their "estimate" was $42 billion.
Basically designed to "prove" that it is not feasible.

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.

$7 billion would be more reasonable.

[Rothman]

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...

It's like the "study" that NYS DOT did on the Rye-Oyster Bay Long Island Sound crossing a few years ago, their "estimate" was $42 billion.
Basically designed to "prove" that it is not feasible.

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.

$7 billion would be more reasonable.

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...

It's like the "study" that NYS DOT did on the Rye-Oyster Bay Long Island Sound crossing a few years ago, their "estimate" was $42 billion.
Basically designed to "prove" that it is not feasible.

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.

$7 billion would be more reasonable.

Be sure to pass your estimate along.

[Beltway]

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.
$7 billion would be more reasonable.

Be sure to pass your estimate along.

Here are the vertical clearances for the bridges --
-- Tappan Zee Bridge: 139 feet at the center.
-- Throgs Neck Bridge: 152 feet at the center.

TZB is 3.1 miles long and 10 lanes wide.

The LIB would be 6.0 miles long and could be a similar design to the TZB but with longer approach trestles. Probably with 6 or 8 lanes.

[Rothman]

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.
$7 billion would be more reasonable.

Be sure to pass your estimate along.

Here are the vertical clearances for the bridges --
-- Tappan Zee Bridge: 139 feet at the center.
-- Throgs Neck Bridge: 152 feet at the center.

TZB is 3.1 miles long and 10 lanes wide.

The LIB would be 6.0 miles long and could be a similar design to the TZB but with longer approach trestles. Probably with 6 or 8 lanes.

No need to convince me.  Pass your estimate along.  I'm sure you took into account depth, current, salinity, etc. Anyway, with your expertise, I'm sure the project will be funded and going through NEPA in a couple of years.

[Beltway]

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.
$7 billion would be more reasonable.

Be sure to pass your estimate along.

Here are the vertical clearances for the bridges --
-- Tappan Zee Bridge: 139 feet at the center.
-- Throgs Neck Bridge: 152 feet at the center.

TZB is 3.1 miles long and 10 lanes wide.

The LIB would be 6.0 miles long and could be a similar design to the TZB but with longer approach trestles. Probably with 6 or 8 lanes.

No need to convince me.  Pass your estimate along.  I'm sure you took into account depth, current, salinity, etc. Anyway, with your expertise, I'm sure the project will be funded and going through NEPA in a couple of years.

How much expertise is needed to know that Something is Rotten in Denmark?

Hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) has that distinct rotten egg smell, and several other gases share similarly foul odors. Here are a few:

Methanethiol (CH₃SH) – Found in decaying matter, it smells like cabbage or rotten eggs.

Dimethyl sulfide (C₂H₆S) – Has a fishy or decaying vegetable odor.

Ammonia (NH₃) – Strong, pungent smell, common in cleaning products.

Sulfur dioxide (SO₂) – Acrid, burnt match-like odor, common in industrial pollution.

Ethyl mercaptan (C₂H₅SH) – Added to natural gas; smells like rotten cabbage.

Trimethylamine (C₃H₉N) – Found in rotting fish, giving that strong seafood stench.

[1995hoo]

Thanks for the I-95 info. Guess I'll see how it is midday on a summer Friday this coming weekend. At least my reunion is next weekend and not Memorial Day, as I have a feeling traffic was probably heavy this past Friday in a way it won't be next weekend.

Both the express and local lanes were a parking lot a full 2 miles before they merge back together beyond VA 3 yesterday and Friday.

It won't be that bad next weekend but it is often slow through there on weekends throughout the year. 6 lanes dropping to 3 fairly abruptly does this.

Yeah, my usual route to Charlottesville means exiting at Route 3. I recall last July when we went to Keswick Hall for our anniversary the local lanes slowed prior to the rest area (and some people were driving through the rest area to try to get ahead). Makes me consider exiting at Route 17 and then using US-1 to connect, but I tend to doubt that would actually save any time. It's too bad there's no way across the river until you're almost to Remington. Doesn't make sense to go that way because it would be easier and almost certainly faster just to use US-29 if you're going to go that far west.

Closing the loop on this because I started the digression, even though it's admittedly off-topic for this thread. We went to my class reunion in Charlottesville this weekend and used my usual route in both directions. Left around 11:40 or so on Friday and used the I-95 express lanes from the Beltway to their southern end. Total toll was around $15. No traffic from there to Route 3, so I didn't have to bail out for another option. Coming home today we pulled out of the hotel in Charlottesville at 9:52 and pulled into the driveway at home at 12:01. Used the I-95 express lanes northbound from their southern end (via the local carriageway coming from Route 3) to the Franconia–Springfield Parkway and it was again around $15. Mainline was moving OK for most of the way and we probably wouldn't have had too much of a delay had I gone out there, but there was still a lot of heavy traffic out there even though it was moving. It was far more pleasant just to get in the express lanes and stay in the right lane with the cruise control set at 70 mph (and indeed there was one cop).

Overall, the HO/T lanes have massively transformed that drive and the worst part of the trip is now the couple of miles of Route 3 roughly between Central Park and the turn for the slug lot at Gordon Road. But that's not nearly as long a stretch of road as it feels like when you're driving it.

[Beltway]

Closing the loop on this because I started the digression, even though it's admittedly off-topic for this thread. We went to my class reunion in Charlottesville this weekend and used my usual route in both directions. Left around 11:40 or so on Friday and used the I-95 express lanes from the Beltway to their southern end. Total toll was around $15. No traffic from there to Route 3, so I didn't have to bail out for another option. Coming home today we pulled out of the hotel in Charlottesville at 9:52 and pulled into the driveway at home at 12:01. Used the I-95 express lanes northbound from their southern end (via the local carriageway coming from Route 3) to the Franconia–Springfield Parkway and it was again around $15. Mainline was moving OK for most of the way and we probably wouldn't have had too much of a delay had I gone out there, but there was still a lot of heavy traffic out there even though it was moving. It was far more pleasant just to get in the express lanes and stay in the right lane with the cruise control set at 70 mph (and indeed there was one cop).
Overall, the HO/T lanes have massively transformed that drive and the worst part of the trip is now the couple of miles of Route 3 roughly between Central Park and the turn for the slug lot at Gordon Road. But that's not nearly as long a stretch of road as it feels like when you're driving it.

The HOT lanes and the local roadways between south of VA-3 to north of US-17, as well.

That provides express travel around those interchanges, and connects directly to the HOT lanes as well as to either express or local.

Now that VA-3 is 4 lanes all the way between US-29 Culpeper and Fredericksburg, is that now the best route between I-95 Fredericksburg and Charlottesville?

[Mapmikey]

Now that VA-3 is 4 lanes all the way between US-29 Culpeper and Fredericksburg, is that now the best route between I-95 Fredericksburg and Charlottesville?

This is dependent on what part of Charlottesville you're headed to.


If trying to get to anywhere beyond Charlottesville it is usually better to still go through horse country to get on I64 at Shadwell or the exit before at SR 616.

29 can be a bear the last couple miles to the bypass, especially the return trip. But is probably better if headed to northern parts or downtown.

Incidentally, coming back I often use SR 619 to avoid the frequently jammed VA 3 getting back into Fredericksburg (I don't need to access 95 at all).

[1995hoo]

I don't see much point in going as far west as US-29 near Culpeper simply because you're going back north to go south. If I wanted to cut over to Route 29, I think I'd either use US-33 from Gordonsville or one of the other roads that connect VA-20 to Route 29.

On this trip, we were staying at the English Inn (next door to Bodo's just off Emmet Street inside the bypass), but our first stop was at Alumni Hall, then the Newcomb Hall bookstore, and then before going to the hotel we drove down Stribling Avenue to take pictures for my mom of the house where she and my father lived some 55 years ago when he attended UVA Law and then the JAG School. I saw no particular advantage to using Route 29 from the north. We approached Charlottesville from the east via VA-22 and US-250, then I-64 as a southern bypass. Worked quite well. Route 29 has loads more traffic lights than it did 30 years ago, and the plethora of lights combined with increased traffic plus no widening north of the Rivanna just makes it an unpleasant drive. I have to say my wife and I both really enjoy passing Grace Episcopal Church just north of Cismont on VA-231 (the fact that my wife's late sister was named Grace is relevant in her case, too). Incredibly scenic little church.

[Beltway]

I don't see much point in going as far west as US-29 near Culpeper simply because you're going back north to go south. If I wanted to cut over to Route 29, I think I'd either use US-33 from Gordonsville or one of the other roads that connect VA-20 to Route 29.

As Mapmikey said, obviously it depends on exactly what parts of the cities you are accessing.

Google Maps Directions lists 79 miles and 1:36 hours for the VA-3 route, and 66 miles and 1:26 hours for the VA-20 route.

So there are advantages in design and drivability and safety for the all-divided highway route, but it is a bit longer.