Northern Virginia HOT Lanes

[vdeane]

Yeah, I don't get it.  It's not like Maryland is going to be building HOT lanes there.  That's dead.  I don't see the point of eliminating shoulders for a second set of express lanes, and the extra complications at Springfield don't appear to be worth it.

[1995hoo]

Yeah, I don't get it.  It's not like Maryland is going to be building HOT lanes there.  That's dead.  I don't see the point of eliminating shoulders for a second set of express lanes, and the extra complications at Springfield don't appear to be worth it.

The addition of shoulders was in fact quite rightly touted as one significant improvement the new Wilson Bridge offered over the old one.

[Beltway]

That's terrible. Two miles of a single GP lane with no ability to pass.

[Beltway]

Yeah, I don't get it.  It's not like Maryland is going to be building HOT lanes there.  That's dead.  I don't see the point of eliminating shoulders for a second set of express lanes, and the extra complications at Springfield don't appear to be worth it.

The addition of shoulders was in fact quite rightly touted as one significant improvement the new Wilson Bridge offered over the old one.

The inner roadways were built with three lanes and full shoulders. The inner lane closed until HOV service starts. I would favor a single HOT lane on that inner lane. That would leave the two GP lanes as it.

[ElishaGOtis]

New updates on 95 bidirectional study: https://www.expresslanes.com/95-express-lanes-bi-directional

[Mapmikey]

New updates on 95 bidirectional study: https://www.expresslanes.com/95-express-lanes-bi-directional

Well that is some ambition right there.

If they actually do it, the relocation of a bunch of flyovers plus widening two or three lanes in one direction of mainline 95 will be a messy construction to have to commute through. Glad I retired from that last year...

[1995hoo]

Channel 4 had a report on tonight's 6:00 news about the I-95 HO/T lanes. VDOT and Transurban are apparently exploring a plan that would expand the entire I-95 portion (and not I-395) to two-way operation at all times. There would be three lanes in both directions from the Franconia–Springfield Parkway to the Prince William Parkway, then two lanes each way south of there, including a new 10-mile extension south of the current terminus at US-17.

The report said they think they can accomplish this within I-95's existing footprint. I can see that further south, but I can't fathom how they would fit three more lanes within the existing footprint for the part where that is proposed.

The report isn't online yet, so I can't link it.

[Beltway]

Channel 4 had a report on tonight's 6:00 news about the I-95 HO/T lanes. VDOT and Transurban are apparently exploring a plan that would expand the entire I-95 portion (and not I-395) to two-way operation at all times. There would be three lanes in both directions from the Franconia–Springfield Parkway to the Prince William Parkway, then two lanes each way south of there, including a new 10-mile extension south of the current terminus at US-17.
The report said they think they can accomplish this within I-95's existing footprint. I can see that further south, but I can't fathom how they would fit three more lanes within the existing footprint for the part where that is proposed.

North of Dale City it would take a massive amount of reconstruction and new right-of-way. Especially at Newington.

I would rather see I-97 extended along US-301 and VA-207 to I-95 at Carmel Church.

Rather than another massive widening project on  I-95.

[sprjus4]

Channel 4 had a report on tonight's 6:00 news about the I-95 HO/T lanes. VDOT and Transurban are apparently exploring a plan that would expand the entire I-95 portion (and not I-395) to two-way operation at all times. There would be three lanes in both directions from the Franconia–Springfield Parkway to the Prince William Parkway, then two lanes each way south of there, including a new 10-mile extension south of the current terminus at US-17.
The report said they think they can accomplish this within I-95's existing footprint. I can see that further south, but I can't fathom how they would fit three more lanes within the existing footprint for the part where that is proposed.

North of Dale City it would take a massive amount of reconstruction and new right-of-way. Especially at Newington.

I would rather see I-97 extended along US-301 and VA-207 to I-95 at Carmel Church.

Rather than another massive widening project on  I-95.

Honestly, both.

[Beltway]

North of Dale City it would take a massive amount of reconstruction and new right-of-way. Especially at Newington.
I would rather see I-97 extended along US-301 and VA-207 to I-95 at Carmel Church.
Rather than another massive widening project on  I-95.

Honestly, both.

I would rather see #2 be the I-93 Western Bypass.

Western Transportation Corridor extended to I-70 at Mount Airy.

[1995hoo]

Following up on this from yesterday, Adam Tuss posted this graphic in one of his tweets. I wasn't able to embed the graphic here last night using my iPad because it wouldn't load just the image to let me get the URL. For legibility reasons, I've left the image size the way it was. I'm not sure what the "two-lane northbound connector" in Springfield is intended to be.

As you can see here, the new southern extension would end at the Spotsylvania County Parkway, which is just south of where US-17 crosses over I-95 immediately south of the Massaponax exit (Exit 126). He didn't say whether there would be new access to and from that road or whether it would simply be an endpoint, but I wouldn't be surprised if an access point were planned. There's a lot of new development there, plus a hospital.

And the report from last night, which includes the video of what they aired on the news, is now online at this link.

[Mapmikey]

I assume the Springfield connector is how the NB lanes will connect to the reversible 395 lanes when they are open northbound.

[jmacswimmer]

The recently-replaced bridge carrying US 17 over I-95 suddenly makes a lot more sense...

I assume the Springfield connector is how the NB lanes will connect to the reversible 395 lanes when they are open northbound.

With the dividing line at Franconia-Springfield Parkway plus the shading showing "395 express lanes" from that point rather than at 95/395/495, I wonder if the bi-directional merge down to reversible will happen there with the "connector" maintaining northbound access to 495 regardless of the reversible direction coming from 395. Maybe it would even be elevated/off-alignment similar to the 394 express lanes just west of 94 in Minneapolis. However, this would leave a gap in direct access from 495 to the southbound express lanes when the reversible portion is pointing north.

[1995hoo]

I figured they wouldn't need a connector road to connect them to I-395 because I envisioned something like the old setup at the northern end of the reversible roadway near the Pentagon—the two one-way roadways would merge together and when the reversible lanes are pointed southbound, barriers would block access to the northbound lanes. (At the Pentagon, the barriers blocked access between the southbound inner roadway and the reversible lanes when the latter were pointed northbound. But no barrier blocked the connection between the northbound inner roadway and the reversible lanes. I took advantage of that on occasion to make a U-turn when traffic was unusually heavy.)

With the dividing line at Franconia-Springfield Parkway plus the shading showing "395 express lanes" from that point rather than at 95/395/495, I wonder if the bi-directional merge down to reversible will happen there with the "connector" maintaining northbound access to 495 regardless of the reversible direction coming from 395. Maybe it would even be elevated/off-alignment similar to the 394 express lanes just west of 94 in Minneapolis. However, this would leave a gap in direct access from 495 to the southbound express lanes when the reversible portion is pointing north.

I can't quite picture how the boldfaced would work, given that the HOV ramps between the Beltway and Shirley Highway are themselves reversible. That is, if the I-395 lanes are pointed southbound, that great big elevated loop ramp serves southbound traffic. It isn't configured to handle traffic coming from the other direction and it would be fairly expensive to reconfigure it. Maybe they plan to add yet more ramps??!!!!!

[jmacswimmer]

I figured they wouldn't need a connector road to connect them to I-395 because I envisioned something like the old setup at the northern end of the reversible roadway near the Pentagon—the two one-way roadways would merge together and when the reversible lanes are pointed southbound, barriers would block access to the northbound lanes. (At the Pentagon, the barriers blocked access between the southbound inner roadway and the reversible lanes when the latter were pointed northbound. But no barrier blocked the connection between the northbound inner roadway and the reversible lanes. I took advantage of that on occasion to make a U-turn when traffic was unusually heavy.)

With the dividing line at Franconia-Springfield Parkway plus the shading showing "395 express lanes" from that point rather than at 95/395/495, I wonder if the bi-directional merge down to reversible will happen there with the "connector" maintaining northbound access to 495 regardless of the reversible direction coming from 395. Maybe it would even be elevated/off-alignment similar to the 394 express lanes just west of 94 in Minneapolis. However, this would leave a gap in direct access from 495 to the southbound express lanes when the reversible portion is pointing north.

I can't quite picture how the boldfaced would work, given that the HOV ramps between the Beltway and Shirley Highway are themselves reversible. That is, if the I-395 lanes are pointed southbound, that great big elevated loop ramp serves southbound traffic. It isn't configured to handle traffic coming from the other direction and it would be fairly expensive to reconfigure it. Maybe they plan to add yet more ramps??!!!!!

Total guesswork on my part, but I'm picturing it essentially as a long ramp (with all northbound express traffic forced onto it when the remaining reversible portion is pointing south) that somehow connects into the general-purpose 95/395/495 ramps and leaves those reversible ramps you mention untouched? Now that you mention it, I wonder if the dividing line at Franconia-Springfield Parkway is in order to avoid further messing with the already-complicated exits 169 & 170.

Actually, now that I'm looking at things more closely...a bunch of unused pavement still remains thru exit 169 northbound, I'm assuming leftover from a temporary setup during exit 169 construction 20ish years ago? I wonder if the connector could somehow make use of this, and even connect to this point where the ramp from VA 644 westbound opens up to 2 (and then 3) lanes?

[Beltway]

Following up on this from yesterday, Adam Tuss posted this graphic in one of his tweets. I wasn't able to embed the graphic here last night using my iPad because it wouldn't load just the image to let me get the URL. For legibility reasons, I've left the image size the way it was. I'm not sure what the "two-lane northbound connector" in Springfield is intended to be.

The Achilles Heal of the whole scheme. Unless they expand the Springfield Interchange at least 50% there is no commensurate size connection with I-495 and I-395. That would take a huge amount of right-of-way and at least 100 homes.

[vdeane]

Actually, now that I'm looking at things more closely...a bunch of unused pavement still remains thru exit 169 northbound, I'm assuming leftover from a temporary setup during exit 169 construction 20ish years ago? I wonder if the connector could somehow make use of this, and even connect to this point where the ramp from VA 644 westbound opens up to 2 (and then 3) lanes?

That would make sense, and it covers just about that distance.  It's too bad they can't use this stub to make a southbound connector, but that looks like it would require new ROW - maybe a potential future phase?

[jmacswimmer]

Actually, now that I'm looking at things more closely...a bunch of unused pavement still remains thru exit 169 northbound, I'm assuming leftover from a temporary setup during exit 169 construction 20ish years ago? I wonder if the connector could somehow make use of this, and even connect to this point where the ramp from VA 644 westbound opens up to 2 (and then 3) lanes?

That would make sense, and it covers just about that distance.  It's too bad they can't use this stub to make a southbound connector, but that looks like it would require new ROW - maybe a potential future phase?

It does kinda look like the various flyovers from VA 644 EB to both directions of I-95 (and from VA 644 WB to I-95 SB) left space for a roadway coming off that stub to slither thru underneath, but then it would run into the backside of the VW dealership and require new ROW to continue further south. (Plus the existing flyover from the express lanes to the regular lanes also complicates things just to the south, along with additional shopping plazas directly south of the VW dealership).

Maybe that's the exact reason a corresponding southbound connector isn't referenced in that graphic - as I mentioned a few posts up, it would leave a small gap between I-495 and the southbound express lanes whenever the reversible portion is pointing north. Assuming this slip ramp remains, I think it would become the de-facto main entrance to the southbound lanes during these periods?

[1995hoo]

The stub vdeane mentions where the loop ramp heading to eastbound Route 644 curves away from the mainline is a location where there used to a be a C/D roadway prior to the massive reconstruction project. Not surprisingly, there's no Street View of that because it was just too long ago, but a Google search led me to this old photo taken during construction where you can see the old southern end of the C/D road (where that white car is next to the Exit 169A sign just below the watermark). Prior to the reconstruction, the overhead signs were set up in a way that could be read to suggest that traffic coming from the Beltway stay to the right and run the C/D roadway to get to I-95 southbound to reduce the amount of weaving in a very short, and very congested, area.



In case the image doesn't display, here's the URL for the page where I found it: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/sarah-l-voisin-the-mixing-bowl-construction-project-for-news-photo/97197464