AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Virginia  (Read 729776 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4225 on: July 12, 2019, 10:30:51 AM »

How about reducing some of the pressure on the HOT lanes so that the tolls don't have to be so high to keep the HOT lanes from congesting in peak hours?
See that’s the problem - you ease congestion in the HO/T lanes and have overall lower toll rates - that’s good for the motorist, but don’t you think Transurban is going to want compensation for the revenue lost?

That’s one of the issues with having another 4th toll lane each way. It’s going to fully be free flowing and taking customers out of the HO/T lanes.

At least with general purpose expansion, there’s still congestion, but it’s relieved across all of the travel lanes and more speed is accumulated. The people who still want a fast ride are still going to pay Transurban to ride in the HO/T lanes who will refuse at all costs to be moving below 65 mph.

not sure why there is not more interest.
Likely because VDOT has never been serious about adding more capacity to the general purpose lanes after Transurban came in.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 10:34:14 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10604
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 08:42:26 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4226 on: July 12, 2019, 10:35:55 AM »

^ Your first point becomes completely moot if it's Transurban that builds the 4th lane.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4227 on: July 12, 2019, 10:42:36 AM »

^ Your first point becomes completely moot if it's Transurban that builds the 4th lane.
It would also then prove my point VDOT is too lazy to deal with it themselves.

We might as well just give the entire highway to Transurban and toll all the lanes.

Seriously though, I don’t have too much of an issue with the median HO/T lanes with the assumption that eventually the general purpose lanes will be widened. But now to toll more lanes when the only 3 free lanes each way are bad enough? And at that point it’s pretty much locked in the fact your never going to have another 4th GP added each way if Transurban is going to toll all new capacity.

Try selling that to the average motorist that the state has no plans whatsoever to add capacity but instead to hand the dirty work of actually expanding an interstate highway with over 200,000 AADT off to private companies to add their for-profit toll lanes. There was already a lot of opposition to the HO/T lanes, and for good reason, I can’t imagine the amount of opposition to this type of project.

This is the reason I-64 is having general purpose expansion. They were not dumb enough to choose HO/T / ETL as the preferred alternative and give it to a private company. Yes, it will take longer to build, but it will be better in the long-run.

The same should be with I-95.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 10:47:24 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4228 on: July 12, 2019, 11:42:51 AM »

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/071819%2000A%20Full%20Agenda.pdf

This resolution will be approved on July 18th by the HRTPO.

Quote
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD PRIORITIZE THE NEXT COMMONWEALTH-FUNDED WIDENING OF INTERSTATE 64 TO BEGIN AT EXIT 234 IN JAMES CITY COUNTY AND ADVANCE WESTWARD TOWARD BOTTOMS BRIDGE.

WHEREAS, on April 3, 2019, the General Assembly of Virginia enacted the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Program and Fund, which includes a provision that a portion of the revenues collected under the Program shall be used by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) for operational improvements and other enhancements to improve the safety and reliability of, and travel flow along, [other] interstate highway corridors in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, I-64 is the only interstate that accesses the Hampton Roads Region – home to 1.7 million people, the Port of Virginia, a large number of military installations, and a thriving tourist industry; and

WHEREAS, in addition to being a critical corridor for freight movement and military mobility, I-64 is a primary emergency evacuation route as well as a major route for reaching prime tourist destinations; and

WHEREAS, in the Hampton Roads Region, three projects are widening approximately 21 miles of I-64 on the Peninsula from four to six lanes between Jefferson Avenue (Exit 255) and Route 199 (Exit 234) at a total cost of $534 million; and

WHEREAS, the I-64/Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion project and the I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge project are widening an additional 18 miles of I-64 from four to six lanes, adding a new 4-lane bridge-tunnel facility and adding a new 4-lane, high-level bridge at a total cost of $4.39 billion; and

WHEREAS, upon completion of these five projects, 66 of the 75 miles of I-64 that lie within the Hampton Roads Region will have a cross section of at least six lanes; and

WHEREAS, the 9-mile segment of I-64, from Route 199 (Exit 234) to the James City County/New Kent County line will be the only segment of I-64 in the Hampton Roads Region with a cross section of less than six lanes; and

WHEREAS, in the Richmond area, one project will widen approximately 4 miles of I-64 from four to six lanes between I-295 (Exit 200) and Bottoms Bridge (Exit 205); and

WHEREAS, the widening of the 29-mile segment of I-64 from Route 199 (Exit 234) to Bottoms Bridge (Exit 205) from four to six lanes has been deemed to be a priority by the State; and

WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Region has demonstrated its commitment to improving I-64 by funding more than 87 percent of total cost of the five Hampton Roads projects described above with regional funds allocated by the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the HRTPO hereby encourages the Commonwealth Transportation Board to keep up the momentum of the Region’s I-64 improvements that have steadily been progressing up the Peninsula toward Richmond; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the HRTPO requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board prioritize the next Commonwealth-funded widening of Interstate 64 to begin at Exit 234 in James City County and advance in phases towards Bottoms Bridge.

This Action was APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board at its meeting on the 18th day of July, 2019.

Looks like if this goes forward we won't be seeing any HRTAC funding for these projects, or at least not fully.

In the agenda, it is indicated the next hopefully project is "Segment 4" which would extend 9 miles from one mile west Exit 234 (VA-199) to two miles west of Exit 227 (VA-30).
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4229 on: July 12, 2019, 12:24:55 PM »

How about reducing some of the pressure on the HOT lanes so that the tolls don't have to be so high to keep the HOT lanes from congesting in peak hours?
See that’s the problem - you ease congestion in the HO/T lanes and have overall lower toll rates - that’s good for the motorist, but don’t you think Transurban is going to want compensation for the revenue lost?
That’s one of the issues with having another 4th toll lane each way. It’s going to fully be free flowing and taking customers out of the HO/T lanes.

Not necessarily, when the I-95 HOT lanes are already near the congestion point in peak hours, and to where within 5 years or so they will need relief, and when the I-395 HOT lanes will have 3 lanes in 2020 and be seamless with the I-95 HOT lanes.

The reversible roadway also has the express benefit of very widely spaced access points, whereas the GP roadways are impacted by closely spaced interchanges with all the friction that they produce.

At least with general purpose expansion, there’s still congestion, but it’s relieved across all of the travel lanes and more speed is accumulated. The people who still want a fast ride are still going to pay Transurban to ride in the HO/T lanes who will refuse at all costs to be moving below 65 mph.

How much is it worth if tolls could fund and construct the 4th lane each way between I-295 and VA-123 by say 2025? 

Or would you rather wait a decade or two longer?

not sure why there is not more interest.
Likely because VDOT has never been serious about adding more capacity to the general purpose lanes after Transurban came in.

If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds posted by a few people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 12:27:55 PM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4230 on: July 12, 2019, 12:33:55 PM »

This is the reason I-64 is having general purpose expansion.

You yourself have opined that adding a managed lane to a 3 lane roadway is much more desirable than adding one to a 2 lane roadway.  I would tend to agree because of the operational and driver choices provided by having 3 GP lanes.

I-95 is a different corridor and it already has 3 GP lanes each way.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4231 on: July 12, 2019, 12:41:00 PM »

The reversible roadway also has the express benefit of very widely spaced access points, whereas the GP roadways are impacted by closely spaced interchanges with all the friction that they produce.
How about an "express" roadway, widely spaced access points, etc. for all long distance traffic without tolls? Then a local roadway for local traffic without tolls? It's been implemented in places before, and works very well.

How much is it worth if tolls could fund and construct the 4th lane each way between I-295 and VA-123 by say 2025?
At first, it sounds amazing. But then reality kicks in. That lane will always be tolled and there will only be three general purpose lanes. I'd rather wait and get it built right for the long run. VDOT needs to be studying how much this will cost, how it could be done properly in phases, and any compensation events required. But as far as I'm aware, no official EIS or Feasibility Study has been completed. The study now is only happening because legislators in Richmond directed CTB to do it. I don't expect much from it.

I-64 could be all six lanes right now if that third lane was tolled. But they chose the right option and are building it as a general purpose lane without tolls in phases over time. See my previous post about requesting CTB to continue funding the rest over time.

NCDOT is widening 45 miles of I-95 by adding two general purpose lanes each way. To get the whole 182 mile corridor done, this will take longer than the original toll plan which would have tolled I-95 and got it all widened in one string, but in the long run, having additional general purpose capacity WITHOUT tolls will be a lot better.

there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Really? You sure about that? People who sit in the traffic jams every day at rush hour as you fly by at 65+ mph after paying $20 in HO/T lanes want it, the localities want it and they've requested it before only to be shot down by VDOT for "compensation event required".

You yourself have opined that adding a managed lane to a 3 lane roadway is much more desirable than adding one to a 2 lane roadway.
In urban areas. The managed lanes already exist in the urban corridor. The rural area south of Fredericksburg does not need managed lanes.

In most cases, in areas like Hampton Roads, 3 GP + 1 managed lane or 3 GP + 2 reversible managed lane works, but on a corridor like I-95 that has massive congestion issues and carries 150,000 - 200,000 AADT in the GP lanes despite the HO/T lanes existing needs an expansion that does not involved more managed lanes. If they could build another one-lane roadbed that carries HO/T traffic opposite of the current 2-lane roadway that could work.

For instance, if the 2-lane HO/T lanes are pointing northbound, the one-lane roadway could carry HO/T traffic southbound. And they would flip back and forth.

But by adding a 4th managed lane each way on the GP lanes, all that does it restrict it from ever getting another GP expansion in the future.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4232 on: July 12, 2019, 01:12:54 PM »

How much is it worth if tolls could fund and construct the 4th lane each way between I-295 and VA-123 by say 2025?
Or would you rather wait a decade or two longer?
At first, it sounds amazing. But then reality kicks in. That lane will always be tolled and there will only be three general purpose lanes. I'd rather wait and get it built right for the long run.
I would rather not wait a decade or two longer, and if it was explained to the public many might feel the same way.

NCDOT is widening 45 miles of I-95 by adding two general purpose lanes each way.
You mean will be in 2026, if it goes according to plans.

To get the whole 182 mile corridor done, this will take longer than the original toll plan which would have tolled I-95 and got it all widened in one string, but in the long run, having additional general purpose capacity WITHOUT tolls will be a lot better.
The original toll plan would have tolled the entire Interstate highway corridor on all lanes, something that nobody has been able to pull off yet.

there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Really? You sure about that?
If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and diatribes posted by a few people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4233 on: July 12, 2019, 01:27:40 PM »

I would rather not wait a decade or two longer
Says the guy who is a toll road lover. Of course you don't want to wait.

and if it was explained to the public many might feel the same way.
I doubt it. There's a lot of opposition to the toll roads here in Chesapeake, and despite plenty of explanation, people still are not on board. It's just a fact - a lot of people don't care for or like tolls.

You mean will be in 2026, if it goes according to plans.
25 miles start next year, and the other 20 miles begin in 2026. More could get funded in that time frame as well, as the STIP is updated every two years.

45 miles is 45 miles more than Virginia is even studying for 8-lanes.

45 miles of I-95 in North Carolina that has 60,000 AADT will be 8-lanes while North Virginia with 200,000 AADT will only have 6-lanes.

If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and diatribes posted by a few people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
You need to stop your creative snipping.

People who sit in the traffic jams every day at rush hour as you fly by at 65+ mph after paying $20 in HO/T lanes want it, the localities want it and they've requested it before only to be shot down by VDOT for "compensation event required".
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 01:30:33 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4234 on: July 12, 2019, 01:38:49 PM »

I would rather not wait a decade or two longer
Says the guy who is a toll road lover. Of course you don't want to wait.

I don't 'love' any kind of road, I am looking for efficient and effective ways to expand the highway system.

and if it was explained to the public many might feel the same way.
I doubt it. There's a lot of opposition to the toll roads here in Chesapeake, and despite plenty of explanation, people still are not on board. It's just a fact - a lot of people don't care for or like tolls.

Those are for entire toll roads across all lanes.

I-95 between I-295 and VA-123 would have the current 3 toll-free GP lanes and one dynamically tolled inner lane.  The toll-free GP lanes would see relief.

If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and diatribes posted by a few people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
You need to stop your creative snipping.

People who sit in the traffic jams every day at rush hour as you fly by at 65+ mph after paying $20 in HO/T lanes want it, the localities want it and they've requested it before only to be shot down by VDOT for "compensation event required".


If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and regurgitate posted by certain people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4235 on: July 12, 2019, 01:51:51 PM »

I don't 'love' any kind of road, I am looking for efficient and effective ways to expand the highway system.
If they built your forth toll lane, you'd be in it every time. Just like the HO/T lanes. You love it.

This has turned from tolls being an OPTION for highway expansion into tolls being the ANSWER for every expansion going forward.

I-95 between I-295 and VA-123 would have the current 3 toll-free GP lanes and one dynamically tolled inner lane.
We've already built the toll lanes in the urban areas, there does not need to be anymore. Widening the rural section of I-95 by adding a toll lane is a pointless project. 8 GP lanes would adequately serve the traffic south of Fredericksburg. North of there, the FredEx of the HO/T lanes will help the people who can't stand one minute to be below 65 mph, while a 4th FREE lane would ease the congestion on the GP lanes for the thousands+ who don't want to pay $20 (or when the FredEx is done likely up to $30) for a rush hour trip every day.

And let's get this straight, if you build your forth dynamically toll lane, what's the price to ride all the way north from Richmond? $100 one-way? I can get a plane ticket from Richmond to DC for just a little more than that. You're out of your mind if that's your solution to I-95's congestion. Maybe for someone who doesn't have an issue spending hundreds of dollars in tolls because they can't stand a second being stuck below the speed limit, but most people would crowd to the 3 GP FREE lanes. If there was 4 GP lanes, it would be better throughout.

If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and regurgitate posted by certain people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.

You're way too defensive about these toll lanes, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way by support to general purpose widening projects.  Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 01:55:43 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4236 on: July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM »

45 miles of I-95 in North Carolina that has 60,000 AADT will be 8-lanes while North Virginia with 200,000 AADT will only have 6-lanes.

You keep adding content to posts after I have replied to them.

Do you have some kind of issue with the northern counties that you keep referring to them as "North Virginia"?

Frankly, building 8 lanes for 60,000 AADT could rightly be called wasteful.

Another correction to your advocacy technology, by 2025 I-95 will have 8 lanes or more between south of VA-3 and I-495, and 5 or more lanes in the direction of peak traffic.

Per another post of yours:
I just tabulated the Interstate widening projects in Virginia, and there are 20 segments and 297 miles that have been completed, and 94 miles either under construction or near construction (I-64, I-66, I-81 and I-95).

Heck, I-95 itself has seen 6 segments and 130 miles completed, some twice.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4237 on: July 12, 2019, 01:58:56 PM »

You keep adding content to posts after I have replied to them.
You're the exact same way.

Frankly, building 8 lanes for 60,000 AADT could rightly be called wasteful.
On I-95? Hell no, that is building for the future and that's being smart. Future traffic projections show the traffic will increase to 90,000 AADT by 2040.

Was I-295 wasteful for being 8-lanes? How much traffic did it have in 1980?

Do you have some kind of issue with the northern counties that you keep referring to them as "North Virginia"?
No, do you have some kind of issue with North Carolina?

North Virginia is the official name of the region.

and 94 miles either under construction or near construction (I-64, I-66, I-81 and I-95).
HO/T lane construction does not count. I did not count the 30+ miles under construction in North Carolina in my figure. I meant GP widening paid for by tax dollars and free to use.

Heck, I-95 itself has seen 6 segments and 152 miles completed, some twice.
and there are 20 segments and 297 miles that have been completed
You're going back in time... doesn't count.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 02:05:50 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4238 on: July 12, 2019, 02:05:39 PM »

I don't 'love' any kind of road, I am looking for efficient and effective ways to expand the highway system.
If they built your forth toll lane, you'd be in it every time. Just like the HO/T lanes. You love it.
Do you have some kind of fetish with writing "HOT" as "HO/T"?  The literature almost always writes "HOT".

This has turned from tolls being an OPTION for highway expansion into tolls being the ANSWER for every expansion going forward.
That is called a strawman argument.  It is a consideration in a few select cases and in those should be studied.

You're way too defensive about these toll lanes, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way by support to general purpose widening projects.  Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.
Based on your posting history your involvement here is obviously part of your employment, in the highway advocacy role.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4239 on: July 12, 2019, 02:11:34 PM »

and 94 miles either under construction or near construction (I-64, I-66, I-81 and I-95).
HO/T lane construction does not count. I did not count the 30+ miles under construction in North Carolina in my figure. I meant GP widening paid for by tax dollars and free to use.
Of course it counts, money is fungible, it is all part of the expansion of the highway system.

Heck, I-95 itself has seen 6 segments and 152 miles completed, some twice.
and there are 20 segments and 297 miles that have been completed
You're going back in time... doesn't count.
You mean that "back in time" means that you can't drive on those widenings?

297 miles blows away NC's mileage of Interstate widenings.  91 more miles coming up.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4240 on: July 12, 2019, 02:13:50 PM »

Frankly, building 8 lanes for 60,000 AADT could rightly be called wasteful.
On I-95? Hell no, that is building for the future and that's being smart. Future traffic projections show the traffic will increase to 90,000 AADT by 2040.

Where do you get those figures from, for current rural volumes and for 2040 rural volumes?  Probably at least twice the real figures.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4241 on: July 12, 2019, 02:21:55 PM »

Do you have some kind of fetish with writing "HOT" as "HO/T"?  The literature almost always writes "HOT".
High Occupancy / Toll

Two different things.

High Occupancy Toll makes it sound like High Occupancy is paying a toll.

The / distinguishes that it's either High Occupancy lane or it's a Toll lane for others.

a consideration in a few select cases
Northern Virginia capacity improvements:

Before Transurban:
Springfield Interchange
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement
I-95 8-lane widening from I-495 to VA-123

After Transurban:
I-95 HO/T lanes
I-495 HO/T lanes
I-395 HO/T lanes
I-66 HO/T lanes
I-495 HO/T lane extension
I-95 HO/T lane extension

Now you're proposing toll lanes down to Richmond.

You're obsessed with these tolls.

297 miles blows away NC's mileage of Interstate widenings.  91 more miles coming up.
Please. I-85 has seen at least 100 miles of expansion, ditto with I-40 and I-26, hundreds of miles of new freeway across the state, beltways around all the major cities, urban freeways, etc. with more planned and under construction. Virginia hasn't built any freeways asides from select urban routes in Richmond, Roanoke, Blacksburg, and Hampton Roads (like US-460, VA-288, VA-199, VA-164, US-220, etc) and town bypasses, and obviously the interstate highway system.

Not to mention, most of Virginia's beltways and urban routes were 90% funded by the federal government, North Carolina has been funding most of the ones there with their own money since they weren't apart of the original system. I couldn't imagine Virginia having to build beltways and urban routes with their own money. It just wouldn't happen, or they'd all be tolled.

Also, all these widenings in Virginia, a lot were funded via the federal government. Again, NCDOT didn't have that benefit for most of theirs.

Blows away Virginia's "297 miles of expansion". 100+ miles of expansion coming up, at least 100 miles of new freeways planned, plus at least 40 miles of HO/T lanes in the Charlotte area since you're counting those too.

Where do you get those figures from, for current rural volumes and for 2040 rural volumes?  Probably at least twice the real figures.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx
Quote
The project would reduce congestion, lower the risk of crashes and enable the interstate to better handle anticipated traffic growth. At exit 22 in Lumberton, about 63,000 vehicles now pass through each day. By 2040, that figure is projected to exceed 95,000.

I'd rather NCDOT overbuild the project than underbuild the project and not build for the future, as seen by VDOT's I-95 Ashland - Triangle widening.

Per VDOT 1985 Traffic volumes, the Ashland - Triangle segment had between 35,000 - 60,000 AADT. That number sky rocketed since then up to 110,000 - 130,000 AADT and the widening was not built for the future.

Sadly, I have a feeling the current 6-lane expansion to I-64 between Richmond and Newport News is going to need a full 8-lanes by 2050 (if it increases from 60,000 rural to 90,000-100,000 rural like other interstates have seen over 20-30 year periods) and honestly should be built to 8 -general purpose- lanes now or have plans to expand it again like they do VA-199 to Jefferson Ave.

Was I-295 overbuilt in 1980 as 8-lanes? In 1985, it was only about 20,000 AADT. Then it increased to only 54,000 AADT by 1995 as I-295 was fully complete, and now 25 years later it's up to nearly 90,000 AADT.

Honestly, I like NCDOT's approach to just 8-lane the whole thing now so it will be set for many decades and not need further expansion. Most other pieces of I-95 in the state are only going to get 6-lanes (though currently unfunded), but they only have 30,000 - 40,000 AADT compared to the 55,000 - 63,000 AADT on the 8-lane segment. Maybe they should just 8-lane the entire thing throughout the state though and have -a lot- of room for growth and save money in the long run.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 02:58:38 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Thing 342

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1230
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Hampton / Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: July 19, 2019, 09:08:14 AM
    • Thing 342's Road Photos
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4242 on: July 12, 2019, 03:46:42 PM »

Do you have some kind of fetish with writing "HOT" as "HO/T"?  The literature almost always writes "HOT".
High Occupancy / Toll

Two different things.

High Occupancy Toll makes it sound like High Occupancy is paying a toll.

The / distinguishes that it's either High Occupancy lane or it's a Toll lane for others.

Christ, this thread.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4243 on: July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM »

297 miles blows away NC's mileage of Interstate widenings.  91 more miles coming up.
Please. I-85 has seen at least 100 miles of expansion, ditto with I-40 and I-26, hundreds of miles of new freeway across the state, beltways around all the major cities, urban freeways, etc. with more planned and under construction. Virginia hasn't built any freeways asides from select urban routes in Richmond, Roanoke, Blacksburg, and Hampton Roads (like US-460, VA-288, VA-199, VA-164, US-220, etc) and town bypasses, and obviously the interstate highway system.

Virginia has built over 200 miles of new freeways, 15 sections, in the last 30 years, I have listed them before.  Over 150 miles connect to the Interstate system and are not isolated freeways.  Just because they don't have a red-white-and-blue trailblazer doesn't mean that they don't fulfill similar roles.

Not to mention, most of Virginia's beltways and urban routes were 90% funded by the federal government, North Carolina has been funding most of the ones there with their own money since they weren't apart of the original system. I couldn't imagine Virginia having to build beltways and urban routes with their own money. It just wouldn't happen, or they'd all be tolled.

As I have said before, that was poor planning and financial stewardship by N.C., to not pursue any under the original Interstate system funding mechanisms.

Virginia got 10 supplemental routes and 152 miles, they did the work to get them approved, and then built, especially impressive with I-664 which was extremely expensive for its time.  Got them all in place by 1992.  Other than I-264 tunnel all the rest is toll-free.

Also, all these widenings in Virginia, a lot were funded via the federal government. Again, NCDOT didn't have that benefit for most of theirs.

To quote a friend, "That's they own dumbness".

Where do you get those figures from, for current rural volumes and for 2040 rural volumes?  Probably at least twice the real figures.
The project would reduce congestion, lower the risk of crashes and enable the interstate to better handle anticipated traffic growth. At exit 22 in Lumberton, about 63,000 vehicles now pass through each day. By 2040, that figure is projected to exceed 95,000.

*RURAL VOLUMES*.  Lumberton has a short but very busy segment.

I'd rather NCDOT overbuild the project than underbuild the project and not build for the future, as seen by VDOT's I-95 Ashland - Triangle widening.

It was not underbuilt for 1987.  That was 32 years ago, and the reversible extension to Dumfries was completed in 1997, Garrisonville in 2014, Falmouth in 2021, and VA-3 ~2024.
 
Active planning was underway in the late 1980s for a Washington Bypass extending south to Falmouth (western) and Carmel Church (eastern).  I-95 wasn't supposed to carry all the load.  Thanks to Maryland inaction none of these could have bypassed the area.
 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 04:31:10 PM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4244 on: July 12, 2019, 04:40:26 PM »

As I have said before, that was poor planning and financial stewardship by N.C., to not pursue any under the original Interstate system funding mechanisms.

Virginia got 10 supplemental routes and 152 miles
"Poor planning"?

They got 161 miles of I-40 between I-85 and Wilmington. It was not split into different routes, but rather one.

It certainly is equally as much as Virginia, actually 9 miles more.

To quote a friend, "That's they own dumbness".
See above. I-40 got them 162 additional miles.

*RURAL VOLUMES*.  Lumberton has a short but very busy segment.
Was I-295 overbuilt in 1980 as 8-lanes? In 1985, it was only about 20,000 AADT. Then it increased to only 54,000 AADT by 1995 as I-295 was fully complete, and now 25 years later it's up to nearly 90,000 AADT.
*RURAL VOLUMES*


Active planning was underway in the late 1980s for a Washington Bypass extending south to Falmouth (western) and Carmel Church (eastern).  I-95 wasn't supposed to carry all the load.  Thanks to Maryland inaction none of these could have bypassed the area.
Fair enough... but how did VDOT expect to fund it and how did they expect Maryland to fund it?

Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4245 on: July 12, 2019, 04:56:53 PM »

As I have said before, that was poor planning and financial stewardship by N.C., to not pursue any under the original Interstate system funding mechanisms.
Virginia got 10 supplemental routes and 152 miles
"Poor planning"?
They got 161 miles of I-40 between I-85 and Wilmington. It was not split into different routes, but rather one.

Yeah, another area of poor planning and financial stewardship.  Raleigh the state capital didn't have any Interstate highway in the original Interstate highway system.

The 69 miles of I-40 between I-85 and I-95 -should- have been in the original Interstate highway system, and the remainder -probably- should have been, Wilmington being the state's prime port city.

It's they own dumbness.

*RURAL VOLUMES*.  Lumberton has a short but very busy segment.
Was I-295 overbuilt in 1980 as 8-lanes? In 1985, it was only about 20,000 AADT. Then it increased to only 54,000 AADT by 1995 as I-295 was fully complete, and now 25 years later it's up to nearly 90,000 AADT.

The segment between I-95 and US-360.  Drops down to 72,000 between VA-156 and I-64.

Given that design years are normally 20 years, they could have legitimately built it with 6 lanes.

The northern loop was completed in 1981 and the eastern loop in 1992.


Active planning was underway in the late 1980s for a Washington Bypass extending south to Falmouth (western) and Carmel Church (eastern).  I-95 wasn't supposed to carry all the load.  Thanks to Maryland inaction none of these could have bypassed the area.
Fair enough... but how did VDOT expect to fund it and how did they expect Maryland to fund it?

It was being credibly being studied by both states in the 1980s.
 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 05:03:02 PM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4246 on: July 12, 2019, 05:01:24 PM »

built it with 6 lanes.
It would just as bad as I-95 is if it was only 6-lanes.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4247 on: July 12, 2019, 05:07:15 PM »

built it with 6 lanes.
It would just as bad as I-95 is if it was only 6-lanes.

I would need to see a traffic profile.  Being an outer bypass that volume is probably spread over many more hours than I-95 with its high peaks with commuter traffic mixed with regional peaks.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4248 on: July 12, 2019, 05:10:16 PM »

built it with 6 lanes.
It would just as bad as I-95 is if it was only 6-lanes.

I would need to see a traffic profile.  Being an outer bypass that volume is probably spread over many more hours than I-95 with its high peaks with commuter traffic mixed with regional peaks.
I'm just saying that from personal experience. As someone who's driven I-295 -a lot-, I can say for the most part between I-64 and I-95, it's packed across all four lanes. If you removed a lane, it would probably congest like I-95 does.

South of I-295, it could honestly be only 4-lanes, but 6 is still good. A large amount of the traffic splits at I-64.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4249 on: July 12, 2019, 05:12:38 PM »

built it with 6 lanes.
It would just as bad as I-95 is if it was only 6-lanes.
I would need to see a traffic profile.  Being an outer bypass that volume is probably spread over many more hours than I-95 with its high peaks with commuter traffic mixed with regional peaks.
I'm just saying that from personal experience. As someone who's driven I-295 -a lot-, I can say for the most part between I-64 and I-95, it's packed across all four lanes. If you removed a lane, it would probably congest like I-95 does.
Sometime it is busy and sometime it is not.  The 72,000 to 90,000 is still considerably lower than any part of I-95 north of I-295.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.