Northern Virginia HOT Lanes

[davewiecking]

The Virginia government and a private partner have reached agreement on another expansion of the HOT lanes network in the D.C. region. This program will take the 95 Express Lanes north eight miles to the D.C. line, replacing the High-Occupancy Vehicle system on Interstate 395 up to the area near the Pentagon.

I read the general overview, and it looks like the only place that is going to get major work done is the Eads Street off-ramp. My guess is that Transurban wants to be able to get their customers off of the HOT carriageway faster (it usually backs up in the morning). Bus commuters will also benefit, if they figure out a way to give precedence to people coming off of the HOT carriageway into the Pentagon over the general-purpose northbound lanes.

I'm curious how the northern part of the express roadway will be treated: the dual-carriageway non-reversible 4 lane portion that starts just south of the VA-27 interchange and continues into DC. This stretch includes the Eads Street interchange.

[1995hoo]

The part about the new ramp at Seminary Road is potentially very confusing. If only HOVs can use it, does that mean HOVs with an E-ZPass Flex, or does it include vehicles with three occupants but no Flex such that the driver paid the toll? I see what Dr. Gridlock's story says about excluding toll-payers, but I also see it says they haven't decided how to make it work, and I also think it's pretty reasonable to assume he's using "toll-payers" to mean SOVs and HOV-2s. (Some people tend to overlook the option for someone eligible for the free ride to pay the toll due to not having three people often enough to warrant getting a Flex.)

We used the I-95 express lanes twice yesterday on a round trip to Charlottesville and when I told my wife about the plan for the Seminary Road ramp, her reaction was that she thinks they'll wind up changing it because having a single exit with different rules won't work unless it's a special situation like the CIA exit on the GW Parkway or the NASA-Goddard exit on the BW Parkway, both of which are situations where it's a direct exit into an ID-restricted area. The new ramp at Seminary doesn't do that–it'll connect directly to the interchange's top level. In theory I could use that ramp going to the mechanic I use near Bailey's Crossroads, for example. There had been a proposal for an HOV ramp directly into/out of the BRAC facility, but it was defeated because of the impact it would have had on the forested nature preserve just south of the property.

Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep the bridge operating as it does now.

[AlexandriaVA]

Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep the bridge operating as it does now.

Wouldn't that be a good thing in the eyes of Transurban? I think you've just made their pitch for them - "Avoid the recurring 14th St Bridge slowdowns, instead, use the guaranteed high-speed lanes all the way to the DC lines." VA already supports HOT lanes, DC has no reason to oppose them, so I don't know what your constituency against HOT lanes will be.

Perhaps the feds, but since the deal would be done under a P3, it could allay conservatives on the relevant committees by making it a "business operation" versus "government tolls".

[1995hoo]

Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep the bridge operating as it does now.

Wouldn't that be a good thing in the eyes of Transurban? I think you've just made their pitch for them - "Avoid the recurring 14th St Bridge slowdowns, instead, use the guaranteed high-speed lanes all the way to the DC lines." VA already supports HOT lanes, DC has no reason to oppose them, so I don't know what your constituency against HOT lanes will be.

Perhaps the feds, but since the deal would be done under a P3, it could allay conservatives on the relevant committees by making it a "business operation" versus "government tolls".

In the eyes of Transurban, of course it would. In the eyes of VDOT and everyone else, I doubt it. Consider the heat VDOT's under due to the afternoon schemozzle down at Exit 143 where the express lanes end. I-395 is horrid already and if they cause a bigger backup by removing the general access to the inner span at the 14th Street Bridge, I'd expect quite a backlash from the driving public. As it is I'm thankful my commute no longer takes me over the 14th Street Bridge. I drove that way from 2000 to 2008 and it was bad for my blood pressure.

[AlexandriaVA]

Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep the bridge operating as it does now.

Wouldn't that be a good thing in the eyes of Transurban? I think you've just made their pitch for them - "Avoid the recurring 14th St Bridge slowdowns, instead, use the guaranteed high-speed lanes all the way to the DC lines." VA already supports HOT lanes, DC has no reason to oppose them, so I don't know what your constituency against HOT lanes will be.

Perhaps the feds, but since the deal would be done under a P3, it could allay conservatives on the relevant committees by making it a "business operation" versus "government tolls".

In the eyes of Transurban, of course it would. In the eyes of VDOT and everyone else, I doubt it. Consider the heat VDOT's under due to the afternoon schemozzle down at Exit 143 where the express lanes end. I-395 is horrid already and if they cause a bigger backup by removing the general access to the inner span at the 14th Street Bridge, I'd expect quite a backlash from the driving public. As it is I'm thankful my commute no longer takes me over the 14th Street Bridge. I drove that way from 2000 to 2008 and it was bad for my blood pressure.

If the "stop $17 tolls" issue in the most recent local elections means anything, I would have my doubts. The precedent has now already been set for taking away non-tolled lanes, with the now-approved 66 plan. Transurban will market towards bus commuters (less backup on your routes) and the "guaranteed arrival" angle to distant commuters. With the high income of the area, I think the preferences are coming through...people from distant suburbs are willing to pay pretty steep prices to ensure their SOV commute is predictable and as fast as possible.

Technical details, such as end-of-HOT bottlenecks, won't make or break this deal.

Like all the other HO/T projects, many people will argue against it, and it will still be implemented.

All Transurban has to do is get some relevant committee members in Richmond to be on board with it.

[oscar]

If the "stop $17 tolls" issue in the most recent local elections means anything, I would have my doubts.

IIRC, everybody who used that as an election issue, lost. So I doubt it "means anything".

[AlexandriaVA]

If the "stop $17 tolls" issue in the most recent local elections means anything, I would have my doubts.

IIRC, everybody who used that as an election issue, lost. So I doubt it "means anything".

Either people didn't connect the two, or it just didn't matter too much to them.

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: HOT enough for you? Virginia has a new plan for interstate toll lanes.

Virginia plans to expand its already extensive system of HOT lanes, creating a tolled network that is likely to dominate the local highway scene for most of the century.

The latest program will push the high-occupancy toll lanes north along Interstate 395 to the D.C. line. Aubrey Layne, Virginia's transportation secretary, said in an interview that the state has reached an agreement on the plan with Transurban, the private partner that operates the 95 Express Lanes to the south and the 495 Express Lanes to the west of I-395.

On Friday, Layne sent letters to the local governments in Alexandria, Fairfax and Arlington to notify them that the state had reached an agreement to move forward on what will amount to an eight-mile extension of the 95 Express Lanes.

Although each HOT lane system is a bit different from the others, drivers who are familiar with the 95 Express Lanes will have a similar experience: They will need to have a regular E-ZPass transponder to pay the toll or an E-ZPass Flex to claim the free ride for those meeting the HOV3 carpool standard.

[cpzilliacus]

I'm curious how the northern part of the express roadway will be treated: the dual-carriageway non-reversible 4 lane portion that starts just south of the VA-27 interchange and continues into DC. This stretch includes the Eads Street interchange.

My guess is that will depend in large part on what the District of Columbia (specifically including DDOT) decides to do (or not to do).

[cpzilliacus]

Regarding the 14th Street Bridge, I shudder at the thought of what the traffic would be like in the mornings if the HO/T restrictions extend over the bridge. The mainline bridge is pretty damn bad as it is, and that's with a lot of people bailing onto the "HOV bridge." Impose a toll and we've already seen a lot of people will refuse to pay it, making the mainline backup even worse. (I know the "HOV bridge" used to carry a peak-hour HOV restriction until the early 1990s, but traffic volumes–and driver misbehavior!–have changed considerably since then.) I suppose the HO/T system could end at the Eads Street ramp so as to keep
the bridge operating as it does now.

The HOV bridge (especially northbound) would carry more traffic in the AM peak period if it were subject to management in the form of HOV/Toll lanes than it does now.

Would that provide relief to the non-HOV lanes?  Probably not, though the operational problems associated with the lane drops and then the cloverleaf ramp from the southbound George Washington Memorial Parkway make matters much worse.

[cpzilliacus]

If the "stop $17 tolls" issue in the most recent local elections means anything, I would have my doubts. The precedent has now already been set for taking away non-tolled lanes, with the now-approved 66 plan. Transurban will market towards bus commuters (less backup on your routes) and the "guaranteed arrival" angle to distant commuters. With the high income of the area, I think the preferences are coming through...people from distant suburbs are willing to pay pretty steep prices to ensure their SOV commute is predictable and as fast as possible.

Technical details, such as end-of-HOT bottlenecks, won't make or break this deal.

Like all the other HO/T projects, many people will argue against it, and it will still be implemented.

All Transurban has to do is get some relevant committee members in Richmond to be on board with it.

Gov. McAuliffe and his administration have said for public consumption that VDOT is likely to not let the private sector run the I-66 HOV/Toll lanes.

[cpzilliacus]

In the eyes of Transurban, of course it would. In the eyes of VDOT and everyone else, I doubt it. Consider the heat VDOT's under due to the afternoon schemozzle down at Exit 143 where the express lanes end. I-395 is horrid already and if they cause a bigger backup by removing the general access to the inner span at the 14th Street Bridge, I'd expect quite a backlash from the driving public. As it is I'm thankful my commute no longer takes me over the 14th Street Bridge. I drove that way from 2000 to 2008 and it was bad for my blood pressure.

It is not clear to me what may happen with the managed lanes south of Exit 143.  You may recall that the Transurban lanes were supposed to run well south of Garrisonville (though not clear how far, I saw varied southern termini), but it was cut-back to where they end today as a direct result of the truncation of the section north of Turkeycock Run. 

Is Transurban going to be required to extend their lanes south of Garrisonville as a result of this agreement?

[froggie]

We shouldn't be looking at this from a "how much traffic will it move".  We *SHOULD* be looking at this from a how many PEOPLE will it move.  That said, I haven't looked enough at this latest VDOT/Transurban proposal to see how the latter is affected by converting the rest of the HOV to HO/T.  If the state can push Transurban to pony up for bus service, it might be worthwhile as user AlexandriaVA suggested earlier.

[1995hoo]

froggie's absolutely right about moving people. It's what a lot of people overlook when they say HOV lanes are underused because there aren't "enough" cars in them.

[cpzilliacus]

We shouldn't be looking at this from a "how much traffic will it move".  We *SHOULD* be looking at this from a how many PEOPLE will it move.  That said, I haven't looked enough at this latest VDOT/Transurban proposal to see how the latter is affected by converting the rest of the HOV to HO/T.  If the state can push Transurban to pony up for bus service, it might be worthwhile as user AlexandriaVA suggested earlier.

Adam, implicit in my statement is people, since the managed lanes are intended to do that, and will continue to do that by charging significant tolls of vehicles that do not comply with the HOV-3 requirement.

By providing free-flow conditions crossing the bridge northbound in the mornings, it gives a big boost to HOV-3 traffic and especially to long(er) haul commuter buses from origins in eastern Prince William County, Stafford County and areas around Fredericksburg.

I know personally one of the senior managers for this bus service, and the amount of time and fuel that the buses have to spend to get the (short) distance from South Joyce Street to lower 14th Street, S.W. is impressive (in a bad way).

However, I summarily reject arguments that just because some SOV and HOV-2 traffic might benefit from this change, that it should not be implemented.

[1995hoo]

I literally just received the following from WTOP:

The 95 Express Lanes will extend 2 miles south into Stafford County to reduce bottlenecks, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announces on WTOP's Ask the Governor program.

That's all I know since I'm not listening to it at work.

[jeffandnicole]

I literally just received the following from WTOP:

The 95 Express Lanes will extend 2 miles south into Stafford County to reduce bottlenecks, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announces on WTOP's Ask the Governor program.

That's all I know since I'm not listening to it at work.

Per this blog: http://liveblogwp.wtop.com/Event/Ask_the_Governor_Terry_McAuliffe_Nov_24

Governor announces that the state with help from Transurban will extend the 95 Express Lanes 2 miles south, deeper into Stafford County to reduce the southbound bottleneck that ocurres when the lanes end at Garrisonville Road.

There's other road related questions/comments on the blog for your amusement as well.

[cpzilliacus]

I literally just received the following from WTOP:

The 95 Express Lanes will extend 2 miles south into Stafford County to reduce bottlenecks, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announces on WTOP's Ask the Governor program.

That's all I know since I'm not listening to it at work.

Two miles? IMO, not enough.  Ten or twenty miles would be more like it.

[jeffandnicole]

I literally just received the following from WTOP:

The 95 Express Lanes will extend 2 miles south into Stafford County to reduce bottlenecks, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announces on WTOP's Ask the Governor program.

That's all I know since I'm not listening to it at work.

Two miles? IMO, not enough.  Ten or twenty miles would be more like it.

Is the delay due to all the volume there, or is it due to the ridiculous "Hey, we've allowed you to speed along at 65 mph.  Now, merge down to 1 lane, slow down to 35 mph to navigate a sharp S curve, then try to weave into traffic while others are trying to exit".

A few weeks back on a trip down to Florida, I was in the vicinity of where the HOT lanes end at about 10pm.  I was watching the lone vehicle in the HOT lanes within eyesight well ahead of me.  By the time he exited the HOT lanes into the general purpose lanes, we were right next to each other.  He lost a significant amount of time due to that S curve at the end, and there was no traffic to slow him down...just the design of the merge.   I could only imagine how bad it is when the highway is much busier!

[Mapmikey]

VDOT's website has some details on this along with the HOT lane conversion of I-395 to DC http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2015/gov._mcauliffe_announces_major88511.asp

The 95 express lanes will now continue to 1500 feet past the Exit 143 on-ramp to I-95 south...this will be a return to the setup the lanes had when they ended in Dumfries with the express lanes merging into the left lane shortly after an interchange.  They will also have 95 NB be able to access the lanes at this location before reaching Exit 143.

Construction starts in 2016, open in 2018 (this seems like a long time...the median is already cleared for more than half of this).  This will improve both directions on 95 a little bit IMO but SB will not be good until they fix the US 17 to VA 3 stretch, which regularly backs up to the Stafford Airport these days.  NB there will still be a weave but a few less cars from 95 as they would already be in the express lanes.

This would tie in nicely to VDOT's desire to add a 4th general lane from Garrisonville to Stafford Airport.  They may also be thinking about the upcoming project of some scale to rebuild the Stafford interchange (Exit 140, SR 630) which could be why the lanes don't get extended past Stafford (which is what I would do if I couldn't get them to Fredericksburg).


The curve on the ramp at the end of 95's HOT lanes can be driven at 45 mph and is not the primary source of the backup.  It is first the weave at Exit 143 and second is the express lanes merging from 2 lanes to 1 before reaching the S curve.

The I-395 conversion is supposed to begin in 2017 and open in 2019.  There will be dedicated funding for new and enhanced transit services and carpooling incentives.


Mike


Fixed link to link to correct page.

-Mark

[74/171FAN]

I will definitely take the Dumfries set-up past SR 610 over the current set-up.  I am slightly concerned that it looks like the entire extension is only planned to be one lane.  I do not see how enough traffic would still exit at the SR 610 ramp to make one lane reasonable the whole way.

[cpzilliacus]

I will definitely take the Dumfries set-up past SR 610 over the current set-up.  I am slightly concerned that it looks like the entire extension is only planned to be one lane.  I do not see how enough traffic would still exit at the SR 610 ramp to make one lane reasonable the whole way.

I agree. 

But I would much prefer that the managed lanes continue much further south, especially when they are running in the southbound direction.

I think Transurban is going to make a heap of money over having control over the entire corridor from the Pentagon south, and can probably afford to extend them south to U.S. 17 (at least).

[jeffandnicole]

I guess, if it's only 1,500 feet long, 1 lane isn't horrible, but it would be better to maintain two lanes down to the merge point.  I would think there's enough room to squeeze two lanes in next to the upslope of the overpass there.

[mrsman]

My thinking is that at least in the interim, it makes sense to have only one lane extended. 

Southbound, 2 lanes HOT and 3 general lanes.  One of the HOT lanes will exit and merge into I-95 on the right prior to Garrisonville Rd.  For those who want to exit at Garrisonville, take this ramp.  The other HOT lane will continue south and merge in to I-95 from the left.  It is much easier to merge one lane in than two.  So since all of the HOT traffic that does not take the flyover will have to merge into the left general lane, it's better that only one lane does it, instead of two.

Of course, if the extension were really long (like 10 miles), then of course extend two lanes instead of one.

[Mapmikey]

There is definitely room for 2 lanes at the flyover location.  If they insist on only one lane for the extension then the current lane drop should be eliminated and the right lane just be exit only onto the flyover. 

Even doing that the single lane back to the mainline 1500 ft past the Exit 143 on-ramp to 95 south will be 2.2 miles long!

Mike