Northern Virginia HOT Lanes

[froggie]

I believe the additional funding did not exist and both VDOT and Fairfax County were unsure they wanted a full interchange there.

No it wasn't.  As it was, they had already deferred one phase of the interchange at the time (the direct HOV ramps).

[Jmiles32]

Will the I-95 HOT lanes ever be extended to their original terminus in Spotsylvania? The project extending them past Garrisionville Rd is nice but not enough. It appears an extension to Spotsylvania was in the original plan but that would be the second phase of a 2 phase project. Is that still legit? Also would Vdot be allowed to extend in a PP3 deal with another company if Transburban does not want to.

[cpzilliacus]

Obviously, the "best" time to do it–maybe the "least worst time" might be the better wording–would have been when the area was already torn up to rebuild the Springfield Interchange. I believe the additional funding did not exist and both VDOT and Fairfax County were unsure they wanted a full interchange there. Apparently there was some sentiment that because there was eventually to be a full interchange between the Fairfax County Parkway and I-95 in Newington (which now exists since they finished the Parkway through the old Fort Belvoir Proving Grounds), they didn't need one for the F—S Parkway because people could just use the other. Problem is, doing that can add substantial travel time because the Newington part of the Parkway gets quite congested due to the traffic lights.

A few thoughts. 

(1) For those scoring at home, remember that the interchange between Va. 289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkay, former 7900) and the managed lanes on I-95 was there for some years before the reconstruction of the Springfield Interchange got started. 

(2) A full interchange was contemplated by Fairfax County plans between I-95 and Va. 289, going back to when Va. 289 and Va. 286 were being planned, in other words back to the 1980's.  A colleague of mine was at a public meeting many years ago (early 1990's), and the one thing that there was unanimity among the persons in attendance was a full interchange for all movements between 95 and 289 (this was also years before the "missing" section of Va. 286 (Fairfax County Parkway, former 7100) was completed across the Fort Belvoir North Area (former Engineer Proving Grounds)).

(3) It was deferred, more than once, because of associated construction costs, and I am not aware of if getting built in the near future, if ever. With Va. 286 complete now, that does form a reasonably good (but somewhat circuitous) high-speed route across the Fort Belvoir North Area that provides access between I-95 and Va. 289.

[TheOneKEA]

I'm going to ask a question that betrays my ignorance of the I-95 Express Toll Lanes south of DC, since I rarely go that way:

Will any further extensions of the lanes south beyond Fredericksburg ever be constructed using a quadruple carriageway arrangement? I am very familiar with the I-95 ETLs constructed by the MdTA north of Baltimore and I believe that a quad-carriageway arrangement works far better  for this segment of I-95 than a reversible carrriageway would, and is far simpler to build if the right-of-way is available. I am surprised that VDOT and Transurban are pushing the reversible carriageway concept so hard and I will be interested to see if a diminishing return will be seen as the carriageway gets longer and the time needed to change directions takes longer.

I wonder if all of I-95 between Fredericksburg and I-295 north of Richmond will eventually have three or more carriageways...

[cpzilliacus]

I'm going to ask a question that betrays my ignorance of the I-95 Express Toll Lanes south of DC, since I rarely go that way:

Will any further extensions of the lanes south beyond Fredericksburg ever be constructed using a quadruple carriageway arrangement? I am very familiar with the I-95 ETLs constructed by the MdTA north of Baltimore and I believe that a quad-carriageway arrangement works far better  for this segment of I-95 than a reversible carrriageway would, and is far simpler to build if the right-of-way is available. I am surprised that VDOT and Transurban are pushing the reversible carriageway concept so hard and I will be interested to see if a diminishing return will be seen as the carriageway gets longer and the time needed to change directions takes longer.

I wonder if all of I-95 between Fredericksburg and I-295 north of Richmond will eventually have three or more carriageways...

Doubt it, mostly because there is no room for such a configuration from around Dale City to Springfield (and even less room through the Springfield Interchange, and north of Springfield on I-395). Remember that the original idea behind the managed lanes in the corridor was to get buses (and later car-pools and van-pools) from Springfield to employment centers in Arlington County and the District of Columbia - north in the mornings, south in the afternoons.

[vdeane]

I'm going to ask a question that betrays my ignorance of the I-95 Express Toll Lanes south of DC, since I rarely go that way:

Will any further extensions of the lanes south beyond Fredericksburg ever be constructed using a quadruple carriageway arrangement? I am very familiar with the I-95 ETLs constructed by the MdTA north of Baltimore and I believe that a quad-carriageway arrangement works far better  for this segment of I-95 than a reversible carrriageway would, and is far simpler to build if the right-of-way is available. I am surprised that VDOT and Transurban are pushing the reversible carriageway concept so hard and I will be interested to see if a diminishing return will be seen as the carriageway gets longer and the time needed to change directions takes longer.

I wonder if all of I-95 between Fredericksburg and I-295 north of Richmond will eventually have three or more carriageways...

There were existing reversible lanes.  Plus they take up less ROW, especially if rush hour traffic is heavily biased in one direction.

[cpzilliacus]

There were existing reversible lanes.  Plus they take up less ROW, especially if rush hour traffic is heavily biased in one direction.

That has traditionally been the case in this corridor - heavy northbound in A.M., southbound in P.M., so I agree with you.

But on weekends, it would be nice to have managed lanes in both directions. At least on the I-95 part of the corridor.

[1995hoo]

I thought TheOneKEA was asking about further extensions being two-way instead of reversible, rather than about converting any existing portion to a quad-carriageway. I've had the same thought at times that as you extend it further and further south, it seems logical that at some point the reversal process would become more of a burden to the point where it'd negatively impact the lanes' usefulness. Of course, I have no idea where that point is.

[TheOneKEA]

I thought TheOneKEA was asking about further extensions being two-way instead of reversible, rather than about converting any existing portion to a quad-carriageway. I've had the same thought at times that as you extend it further and further south, it seems logical that at some point the reversal process would become more of a burden to the point where it'd negatively impact the lanes' usefulness. Of course, I have no idea where that point is.

Yes, this is what I'm asking about. I know it's completely impossible to add any new carriage ways northeast of Occoquan and that it will be hideously expensive south of there. I am asking about the areas that haven't been expanded yet.

[cpzilliacus]

Yes, this is what I'm asking about. I know it's completely impossible to add any new carriage ways northeast of Occoquan and that it will be hideously expensive south of there. I am asking about the areas that haven't been expanded yet.

There were plans to run the managed lanes as far south as Massaponax, but that got killed as part of the Arlington County lawsuit against VDOT and FHWA.  As far as I know, it has not been revived.

[froggie]

No plans to my knowledge of having a dual set of HOT/HOV lanes.  Furthermore, it would be an operational problem where the dual set reverted to the existing reversible set, especially in the northbound direction when the reversible lanes are running southbound.

Needed?  Yes.  Feasible?  No.....only way to squeeze them in would involve taking away existing regular lanes north of Dale City...ESPECIALLY in the constricted areas near Occoquan (VA 123) and north of Newington (VA 286).

[AlexandriaVA]

Seems like an unnecessary complication from an operational standpoint. It'd be a different issue if it were a new facility altogether, but everyone understands and is used to the idea of reversibility.

Plus how much reverse-peak capacity do you need? The occasional slowdown on the weekend going out to the beach or Potomac Mills doesn't warrant it.

[jeffandnicole]

At this point, if dual carriageways were built, those in the non-peak direction could only make use of them for a short distance before they're forced off of them again (which would then become a congestion chokepoint in itself)...if they even allow traffic on them at all.

The only way a dual carriageway would be useful is that it wouldn't need to be checked for any remaining traffic prior to the reverse direction being opened.  If we're talking to Massaponax, it's only another 20 miles or so, thus not a huge time killer to check a single carriageway.  And it's a huge expense to built an extra set of lanes that will be open less than 50% of the time.

[Mapmikey]

With regard to the OP question, there isn't any room in I-95's median for even a reversible lane from I-295 north to VA 54 Ashland (8 miles) and there is some development along 95 to make this an expensive proposition to expand the ROW outward.

Dual carriageways would make no logistical sense anywhere along 95 unless it was for commuting to Richmond from the north, which I think drops off pretty significantly north of Ashland.  There are not that many housing developments north of Ashland near I-95 (unlike in Stafford and northern Spotsy which are still springing up and these folks commute northward).  But the dual lanes would need to drop to the single reversible lane at wherever the transition from Richmond commuter to DC commuter area is (Ladysmith or Thornburg?).

Squeezing a dual carriageway in locations north of this where it happens to be possible now would just cause all kind of problems...would need to be the whole distance which everyone knows is a non-starter in terms of $.

A 4th general lane south to Richmond from wherever the HOT lanes ultimately end would be a cheaper choice and be enough to mitigate most traffic issues on 95 in that area.

Mike

[cpzilliacus]

A 4th general lane south to Richmond from wherever the HOT lanes ultimately end would be a cheaper choice and be enough to mitigate most traffic issues on 95 in that area.

Ideally, I-95 ought to be four general-purpose lanes from I-295 near Glen Allen in Henrico County all the way to Springfield in Fairfax County.

[froggie]

I'm not convinced yet that there's a need between Ashland and the south side of Fredericksburg.  This section just doesn't see the volumes or the demand.  6-lane freeways can adequately handle demand WELL into the 100K's, and 95 is below 100K from Carmel Church to Exit 126.  North of Route 3 in particular is where volumes pick up significantly.

[cpzilliacus]

I'm not convinced yet that there's a need between Ashland and the south side of Fredericksburg.  This section just doesn't see the volumes or the demand.  6-lane freeways can adequately handle demand WELL into the 100K's, and 95 is below 100K from Carmel Church to Exit 126.  North of Route 3 in particular is where volumes pick up significantly.

Ever driven it on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday or holiday?

[froggie]

Yep.  And the vast bulk of the problem on those days is north of Fredericksburg, not south.

[cpzilliacus]

Yep.  And the vast bulk of the problem on those days is north of Fredericksburg, not south.

I do not go that way, on those days, preferring to use U.S. 301 since in-car applications became widely available, but I have many bad memories of getting mired in severe congestion on much of I-95 in Virginia.

Applications like Inrix and TomTom generally show solid yellow or red between I-295 and locations to the north.  Some days, the section between Va. 207 and I-295 is terrible, probably because some drivers are afraid of U.S. 301 and its mostly two lane undivided section from Bowling Green to Richmond.  Other days, I have seen it stop-and-go from 295 all the way to the express lane entrance (when those lanes are running northbound).

[Rothman]

Yep.  And the vast bulk of the problem on those days is north of Fredericksburg, not south.

I think I agree with this.  I've had miserable drives from the Beltway down to Aquia, but I think that's the extent of the hell that is I-95.

[cpzilliacus]

Fredericksburg.com: Fredericksburg localities don't want to miss out on express lanes cash - ONCE EXPRESS LANES CONNECT WITH I-395, LOCAL OFFICIALS WANT THEIR FAIR SHARE OF PIE

The extension of the express lanes to Interstate 395 will not only close a gap in the electronically tolled system, it will send millions in revenue to jurisdictions along the corridor.

But some local transportation officials are crying foul over the planning process and how the revenue will be used.

The express lanes extension agreement between the state and Transurban calls for an annual payment by Transurban for transit services and multimodal strategies identified in a study led by Virginia's Department of Rail and Public Transportation.

The Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission were chosen to represent regional jurisdictions as part of the study. Stafford, Spotsylvania and Fredericksburg are members of the PRTC but not NVTC.

The cities of Alexandria and Arlington and the counties of Fairfax, Prince William and Stafford are also included as members of the study.

At Monday's monthly meeting, Policy Committee members of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization voiced concerns over the program.

[1995hoo]

In Dr. Gridlock's online chat today, Virginia's secretary of transportation said legislation effective later this year will require HO/T lane operators to query the E-ZPass database before sending out an invoice. I don't have any further info than that, but I'm sure it won't be quite that simple, especially as to out-of-staters. 

[cpzilliacus]

In Dr. Gridlock's online chat today, Virginia's secretary of transportation said legislation effective later this year will require HO/T lane operators to query the E-ZPass database before sending out an invoice. I don't have any further info than that, but I'm sure it won't be quite that simple, especially as to out-of-staters.

As I understand it there is a file that is updated regularly that has all license plate numbers associated with the corresponding E-ZPass transponders, and the serial number of the transponder.

Not that difficult for any toll operator, including Transurban, to query the database and if the plate number is in that file, to charge the associated account. Seems like they should have been checking against that file from when they opened for business.

[jeffandnicole]

In Dr. Gridlock's online chat today, Virginia's secretary of transportation said legislation effective later this year will require HO/T lane operators to query the E-ZPass database before sending out an invoice. I don't have any further info than that, but I'm sure it won't be quite that simple, especially as to out-of-staters.

As I understand it there is a file that is updated regularly that has all license plate numbers associated with the corresponding E-ZPass transponders, and the serial number of the transponder.

Not that difficult for any toll operator, including Transurban, to query the database and if the plate number is in that file, to charge the associated account. Seems like they should have been checking against that file from when they opened for business.

I can't imagine it being any more difficult than having to go to various state's DMVs to get the addresses of the car's registered owners.

I don't recall anyone stating they have had issues recently with EZ Pass in any other state, regardless of where their EZ Pass is from, if they missed a toll. The problem seems to be unique to Transurban, who apparently is much more interested in collecting fines to help pay off their roads.

[cpzilliacus]

I don't recall anyone stating they have had issues recently with EZ Pass in any other state, regardless of where their EZ Pass is from, if they missed a toll. The problem seems to be unique to Transurban, who apparently is much more interested in collecting fines to help pay off their roads.

I think that is correct, though the (Transurban) just today settled a court case (heard about it on WTOP Radio) that is supposed to decrease the effort to fine people and increase other, and non-punitive ways to collect tolls that are due.

WTOP Radio: Express lanes operator agrees to settlement with Va. drivers

Transurban, the company that operates express lanes in Northern Virginia, has settled a class-action lawsuit with drivers who were charged massive fines after missing toll payments.

Under the terms of the settlement, Transurban will give drivers 10 days, instead of the current five days, to pay missed tolls before penalties are tacked on.

Some customers who shelled out hundreds or thousands of dollars will be eligible for refunds, and Transurban will roll out new initiatives to get customers signed up for missed toll email alerts.

"We're quite proud of the fact that we were able to convince Transurban to change,"  said Kevin Stanfield, one of the plaintiffs and a producer with WTOP sister station Federal News Radio.

Stanfield owed just $29 in missed tolls due to a credit card mix-up, but Transurban ended up charging him more than $2,000 in penalties and fees.

"They were making it seem like we were purposely trying to circumvent the process and travel without paying, which wasn't the case,"  he said.

The settlement still must be reviewed and approved by a judge.

Washington Post: HOT lanes operator reaches deal in tolling lawsuit that alleged predatory practices

A tentative settlement was reached Monday in a federal lawsuit that alleged the operators of Northern Virginia's high-occupancy toll lanes routinely failed to notify drivers in a timely manner that they had missed tolls and were accumulating huge fees and fines – sometimes amounting to thousands of dollars.

The agreement in the class-action lawsuit filed last April in federal court in Alexandria proposes to increase protections for motorists and give them more time to clear missed tolls from their accounts before they are sent to collection; some customers also will be eligible for refunds. Transurban, the company that manages the lanes, and several law firms representing the plaintiffs filed the proposed settlement with the court on Monday, but it must be reviewed by a judge.

Electronic tolling systems such as those used in the Virginia HOT lanes are becoming more common in the D.C. region and across the nation. The tolls are collected by an electronic interaction between a driver's E-ZPass transponder and monitoring equipment mounted in gantries along the highways. The electronic transaction may fail for several reasons. For example, the transponder may be incorrectly mounted, or there may not be enough money loaded on the user's E-ZPass account to cover the toll. Meanwhile, video equipment in the gantry has recorded an image of the vehicle's license plate, creating a bill for the registered owner of the vehicle.