This is just wrong.

[pjfootballer]

So I say again...what's the problem? That's part of capitalism. Your elected officials needed a way to build a road that would help traffic...they didn't have the money to do that. They found a way, but at a cost. At least ya got your road. It's not their fault you have a different cost in your mind for convienince. As it was said before...if it were free, you'd still have traffic issues, only now you'd have more lanes of it.

More about the cost. I don't think people are opposed to toll roads, but they spend tax payer money on them and then want to charge an arm and a leg to use them. Double dipping. $18 for one trip? You trippin! $3 or 4 bucks? I can deal.

[zoony]

So if there is a traffic accident, and faulty road conditions are ruled to be the culprit, who gets sued?

[The Evil Genius]

So if there is a traffic accident, and faulty road conditions are ruled to be the culprit, who gets sued?

 

Depends on the agreement but usually maintenance is handled by the owner of the road. 

[RansomthePasserby]

Variable toll lanes are GREAT for controlling flow of traffic and limiting congestion IN those lanes. But they're garbage for reducing congestion for the entire road (which was the main problem). They're specifically designed to make a minimal impact on traffic flow.

The issue is you have variable toll lanes that are designed to keep people out to guarantee the traveling speed at 55mph. They do that by raising the price when traffic is at its worst to disincentivize people from using them. That inherently limits the possible impact they have at reducing congestion.

 

That would be true if they were converting general purpose lanes into HOT lanes, but in this case, the HOT lanes were converted from existing HOV lanes. So you're basically allowing MORE volume on the HOV lanes than you were before. The HOVers were already using the road before, and they are still using the road now, but the toll payers are now being subtracted  from the general purpose lanes. I don't get how this doesn't reduce overall congestion?

 

Actually, we have the same problem here.  The bottleneck on 485 near Carolinas Place Mall.  They have improved it by opening it up to 4 lanes, but there is still 1 lane on both sides that remains closed as they "ponder" wether or not to make them HOV or Toll Lanes. HOV lanes in Charlotte is a joke anyways.  I rarely see anyone use what little we have.  I-77 south of John Belk to the SC state line will have to be delt with soon.  I travel that way to and from work and 3 lanes just doesn't cut it.  We have 4 lanes in SC starting at Carowinds. That is going to be a nightmare for several years when they start coming down that way.  Bridges and overpasses will need to be rebuilt because you can't squeeze anymore lanes under them.

 

 

 

I get that managed lanes will help keep up speeds and keep traffic flowing, but 2 points.

 

1) It has to be cost prohibitive to the drivers. $18 is a ripoff.  You have to make it affordable or a high volume of people aren't going to pay for it.  I know when I lived in South Florida, we could take the turnpike that was affordable or get an SunPass and have the indicator on your car when you pass through, to avoid I-95 going to Miami.

 

2) If not enough cars are driving on the toll roads, then it's defeating it's own purpose.  I would agree that 1 extra lane may not alleviate traffic in a way that you need it to, but 2 open lanes makes a world of difference.  Like I said to Taze above, we had 2 lanes going towards our mall.  It was gridlock with little movement if you went there at 5-6 PM.  Now, if I need to go that way on the way home from work, 4 lanes has really opened it up and the dumbasses could have 5 lanes if they wanted to. I hardly brake going through there anymore.

 

1) You don't want just any high volume of traffic, you have to set the price so that the volume is as close to capacity as possible. If you set it too low, too many people get on and your LOS drops. If you set it too high, not enough people get on and you lose money. I'm sure Transurban's mathematical price model is continuously calibrating so they hit a volume sweet spot. And something just occurred to me... if the state is picking up the difference in profit, it may be in Transurban's best interest to keep the volume at some % lower than capacity to save on maintenance costs... and if they're doing that, that's definitely NOT right.

 

2) The amount of lanes you add depends on the demand for the roadway. In your case, adding two lanes was enough to accommodated the demand. But if the demand is VERY high, two lanes may not be enough. Plus, road widening can get VERY expensive. It's not just throwing down some new pavement and calling it a day. You factor in right of way costs, overpass modifications, and upgrades to interchanges along the entire corridor.

[The Evil Genius]

..and don't forget environmental mitigation AND being sued out the wazoo for EJ problems (because oftentimes, disadvantaged areas are impacted the most when new roads are being planned/constructed - especially since their property values are the easiest to acquire/digest).

oh..and I thought I was the only transportation nerd (planning - but some of y'all might be engineers - it's ok - no judgements) here. Guess I'll have to make room for some peeps. 

[RansomthePasserby]

..and don't forget environmental mitigation AND being sued out the wazoo for EJ problems (because oftentimes, disadvantaged areas are impacted the most when new roads are being planned/constructed - especially since their property values are the easiest to acquire/digest).

oh..and I thought I was the only transportation nerd (planning - but some of y'all might be engineers - it's ok - no judgements) here. Guess I'll have to make room for some peeps. 

I don't even like thinking about anything environmental related... makes my head hurt.

Haha! Guilty as charged. I'm a traffic engineer, but I work in the transportation planning division of a consultant company that serves VDOT, DDOT, and MDOT. So we're on the same page.

 

EDIT: Why did I out myself in front of a bunch of rabid commuters? Please don't kill me, guys.

[mcsluggo]

I can't imagine having to sign over for 75 years in a BOT in a banana Republic.

 

THis is in the fiscally sound (and growing) state of Virginia... and all of the road (I-95) that is currently raking in tolls already was built.  I obviously haven;t seen ANY specifics for this project... but i have a hard time believing that there was not a better contract available.

 

 

AND>>>>>> the only reason this went this way at all was because the non-NOVA portion of the assembly constantly seek to screw the NOVA pooch.   It is ****ing irritating.   NOVA is where all the money comes from.  NOVA is where all the growth is taking place.  NOVA is where growth is constrained the most by existing infrastructure.  and... so.... lets spend all the infrastructure budget in pojunk buttholeville and pretend like we are hoping that this spending will SPUR imaginary future growth.

 

buttholes.  

[Xameil]

I'm sensing some people don't like NoVa

[TheGoodBits]

That would be true if they were converting general purpose lanes into HOT lanes, but in this case, the HOT lanes were converted from existing HOV lanes. So you're basically allowing MORE volume on the HOV lanes than you were before. The HOVers were already using the road before, and they are still using the road now, but the toll payers are now being subtracted from the general purpose lanes. I don't get how this doesn't reduce overall congestion?

.

I'm not sure how they did it on 95 but I'm referring to the 495 project where they spent billions adding two extra lanes. What I mean is that there is an opportunity cost associated. You had the opportunity for the state to pay for 100% of the project and give all commuters two extra lanes to use to ease congestion. Instead the state paid for 66% of the project, gave the toll rights to a private company, and signed off on an agreement that made it so only a small fraction of commuters would get to use the lanes.

[The Evil Genius]

I'm not sure how they did it on 95 but I'm referring to the 495 project where they spent billions adding two extra lanes. What I mean is that there is an opportunity cost associated. You had the opportunity for the state to pay for 100% of the project and give all commuters two extra lanes to use to ease congestion. Instead the state paid for 66% of the project, gave the toll rights to a private company, and signed off on an agreement that made it so only a small fraction of commuters would get to use the lanes.

 

Just as a caveat..I have no idea what the AQ looks like in NoVa (or Va to begin with) - but that might have been a decider on it. From what I can tell, HOT Lanes are usually exempt from AQ conformity determinations. But again - I might be off on that since I haven't done AQ stuff in many many many years. 

 

It is something that I do know that most people don't think about when roads are planned and/or constructed (or not constructed).

[Redskins Diehard]

Oh I get it...

Actually based on the large block of text that I didn't quote. . You don't get what I've been saying at all. Here's a hint. ..I have not attacked the idea of dynamic toll HOT lanes

I don't even like thinking about anything environmental related... makes my head hurt.

Haha! Guilty as charged. I'm a traffic engineer, but I work in the transportation planning division of a consultant company that serves VDOT, DDOT, and MDOT. So we're on the same page.

EDIT: Why did I out myself in front of a bunch of rabid commuters? Please don't kill me, guys.

My question for you. ...ha...if you are familiar with 66....why didn't/don't they have more HOV on/off ramps from the center of the road. The folks who try to merge across 3 lanes in their Prius really do screw things up

[RansomthePasserby]

My question for you. ...ha...if you are familiar with 66....why didn't/don't they have more HOV on/off ramps from the center of the road. The folks who try to merge across 3 lanes in their Prius really do screw things up

 

I am familiar with 66. Usually they don't have entrances and exits from the left lane because flyover ramps are pretty expensive. Yeah, merging across three lanes of traffic does screw things up. It's also illegal.

 

I'm not sure how they did it on 95 but I'm referring to the 495 project where they spent billions adding two extra lanes. What I mean is that there is an opportunity cost associated. You had the opportunity for the state to pay for 100% of the project and give all commuters two extra lanes to use to ease congestion. Instead the state paid for 66% of the project, gave the toll rights to a private company, and signed off on an agreement that made it so only a small fraction of commuters would get to use the lanes.

 

I'm not as familiar with the 495 project, but I definitely agree that it doesn't have as much of an up-side compared to the 95 express lanes, and its performance hasn't really met expectations.

[pjfootballer]

That would be true if they were converting general purpose lanes into HOT lanes, but in this case, the HOT lanes were converted from existing HOV lanes. So you're basically allowing MORE volume on the HOV lanes than you were before. The HOVers were already using the road before, and they are still using the road now, but the toll payers are now being subtracted  from the general purpose lanes. I don't get how this doesn't reduce overall congestion?

 

 

1) You don't want just any high volume of traffic, you have to set the price so that the volume is as close to capacity as possible. If you set it too low, too many people get on and your LOS drops. If you set it too high, not enough people get on and you lose money. I'm sure Transurban's mathematical price model is continuously calibrating so they hit a volume sweet spot. And something just occurred to me... if the state is picking up the difference in profit, it may be in Transurban's best interest to keep the volume at some % lower than capacity to save on maintenance costs... and if they're doing that, that's definitely NOT right.

 

2) The amount of lanes you add depends on the demand for the roadway. In your case, adding two lanes was enough to accommodated the demand. But if the demand is VERY high, two lanes may not be enough. Plus, road widening can get VERY expensive. It's not just throwing down some new pavement and calling it a day. You factor in right of way costs, overpass modifications, and upgrades to interchanges along the entire corridor.

 

Yeah, I just think at that price, they have a lot of "calibrating" to do.  Seems a bit outrageous.

 

I fully understand what goes through building a road and the costs associated with it.  I just think road planners don't look ahead far enough when deciding what to do and the impact it has on people's commutes.  Our county here in SC has done a pretty good job.  We have one by-pass that is a 2 lane road.  But they secured right of way and future costs when the time is right, they can make it a five lane road (2 lanes on both sides with a turning lane in the middle).  I went to the road planning meeting and I was impressed with their vision, which is rare.

[Sticksboi05]

The new tolls they will put in place for I-66 in 2017 are ridiculous. Paying to sit in traffic. That highway is a hell hole, always has been.