Proposal pitched for HOV
Printed From: Slug-Lines.com
Category: Archived Slugging Topics
Forum Name: HOT Lanes Discussion
Forum Description: Post messages regarding High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes here.
URL: http://www.slug-lines.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=713
Printed Date: 28 Nov 2024 at 10:19pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Proposal pitched for HOV
Posted By: swichowski
Subject: Proposal pitched for HOV
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2003 at 8:11am
lanes proposal would be costly
By EDIE GROSS
Date published: 11/21/2003
Tolls, extension for I-95 offered
A consortium of road builders is prepared to spend between $400 million and $500 million to widen existing high-occupancy-vehicle lanes in Northern Virginia and extend them to the Fredericksburg area.
The proposal, submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation in September and made public this week, pledges that state and federal money will not be needed to build the project.
However, the proposal does disclose that VDOT may be asked to pay some of the costs of purchasing right of way and moving utility lines in the project's path.
"We've got a good, educated guess about the costs of right of way and utilities. If it costs more than that, we're asking VDOT to pick that up," said Garry Palleschi, a spokesman for Shirley Contracting Co., one of the firms involved in the proposal. "It could be zero."
According to the proposal, VDOT could also be asked to pitch in some money for enforcement of the rules and toll collection on the new facility, though dollar figures have not been made public yet.
If built, the lanes down the middle of Interstate 95 would serve a dual purpose: They would operate as regular HOV lanes for motorists carrying the required number of occupants, and they would be toll lanes for those carrying fewer than three people.
Motorists driving by themselves or with one other person could have access to the so-called High-Occupancy Toll lanes, or HOT lanes, for a price. That fee would vary, depending on what the demand for those lanes was at the time.
Once the HOT lanes reached a certain capacity, they would be closed to any more traffic.
In July the state agreed to work with private firm Fluor Daniel, which proposed building HOT lanes along Interstate 495 from the Springfield Interchange to the Dulles Toll Road.
The latest proposal, put forth by Clark Construction Group, Shirley Contracting Co. and Koch Performance Roads, is the first to include the Fredericksburg area.
The group's plan was offered under the state's Public-Private Transportation Act, which allows companies to submit transportation projects unsolicited, especially if they're willing to shoulder most of the financial burden.
The act is designed to move projects along more quickly by allowing the private sector to finance and build roads. The Clark-Shirley-Koch team has said that it could finish its HOV/HOT-lanes project by March 2009.
If approved by the state, the firms would widen the existing HOV section to three lanes from the Springfield Interchange to State Route 234 in Dumfries. Then all three lanes would be extended down to Interstate 95's U.S. 17 exit in Stafford, at mile marker 133.
The tolls collected would be used to pay off the debt from the road's construction and to pay for toll operations, according to the proposal. But it goes on to suggest that if toll revenues are lower than expected, VDOT may be asked to pay some toll-operation and enforcement costs.
VDOT would own the three-lane facility and maintain it, though Koch Performance Roads would take care of routine maintenance during the first 20 years.
VDOT has posted the proposal on its Web site, virginiadot.org. Other companies that would like to offer a competing plan have until March 17, 2004, to do so.
All proposals go through an extensive review process to see whether the firms are qualified to design, build and pay for the projects. Localities affected by the projects also are given an opportunity to comment. The entire process can take up to a year to complete.
To reach EDIE GROSS: 540/374-5428 egross@freelancestar.com
Date published: 11/21/2003
|
Replies:
Posted By: SlugBuddy
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2003 at 10:20am
I thought that proposal was determined to be a very bad idea and now they are talking about it again?!?! They spent $1M dollars on a survey to determine whether tolls for the HOV would work and the survey determined it wouldn't so I wonder why they keep harping on the idea. VDOT must enjoy throwing away money, money that could have been put towards extending the HOV to Fredericksburg and if the state police would ticket violators more often, they would have even more money towards extending the HOV. Especially since the cost of the ticket goes up the more violations people have.
Opening the HOV to people who are willing to pay a toll is the worst idea I've ever heard. What about one of the main reasons for mass transit and slugging, environmental impact? What about VDOT's goal of getting less vehicles on the road? I thought that was the whole point of HOV. If they pass this toll idea, then slugging will die and there will be huge economic impacts to the area because I for one and many others will not commute under those conditions. Any of us who will be impacted by this should band together to let our feelings be known to VDOT.
|
Posted By: cdatkins
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2003 at 10:36am
Like I said a few months ago:
These developers are bound and determined to make a buck off the public, whether we like it or even need the additional roads, etc.
I sound like a populist...
|
Posted By: tdar20
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2003 at 12:08pm
|
Make a buck off the public?? Well, getting the hOV lanes extended is not going to be free. I may be the only person in this forum to agree with the proposal but I also believe that is it a cost of doing business in N.Va. The growth in this area is not going to stop anytime soon and our tax dollars are already maxed out. So, that being said if you want to use the HOV lanes and you do not have three in your car then you pay for the right to dirve there. Sounds like a win-win situation for me. It is a dream to think that VDOT is actually going to build any type of extension to the existing HOV lanes.
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2003 at 12:36pm
Yes it sounds great to me too. First they come in and tear up our existing HOV lane. We have to deal with construction, etc. for years. Then they make all the lanes smaller and take away a shoulder. Then they let everyone onto the lane willing to spend a few bucks. HOV inside the Beltway will remain 2 lanes. This will cause gridlock from Lorton to the Pentagon. You are advocating something that will kill slugging in my opinon
Bob
|
Posted By: cdatkins
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2003 at 4:15pm
Logic suggests that the growth in the area should "pay its way" for roads, schools, etc.
New people pay more taxes, available for things like widening HOV lanes.
The only possible hole in this theory is if the tax base is set up such that new people don't pay taxes to support their own use of roads and schools. I haven't seen anything to suggest this is the case, though.
|
Posted By: mycroftt
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2003 at 7:37am
|
The fallacy behind the HOT proposals is that there is unused capacity on the HOV lanes. I ride the HOV lanes every day and I have not observed any unused capacity. Rarely a day goes by that we do not come to a complete stop at least a couple of times.
|
Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2003 at 8:54am
quote:
Originally posted by mycroftt
[br]The fallacy behind the HOT proposals is that there is unused capacity on the HOV lanes. I ride the HOV lanes every day and I have not observed any unused capacity. Rarely a day goes by that we do not come to a complete stop at least a couple of times.
I think the reason some people say there is "unused" capacity, is that there are off-peak times for HOV. I don't think there's as much volume between 8-9 AM, and 3:30-4:30 PM as there is other times.
I agree with you. There certainly is no room for growth in volume without creating substantially longer delays.
|
Posted By: tdar20
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2003 at 9:30am
|
Bob.......Kill slugging?? I hardly think so. Slugging has been around for quite some time and I dont think it is going anywhere. And what is wrong with a differing opinion? So this is a pro slugging website......open up your imagination and think out of the box a little and explore new ideas. Play them out a little to see what actually may happen before you bash them without any real facts. As it stands now the HOV lanes are almost to capacity, somethign will have to be done to help out eventually.
|
Posted By: deaspy
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2003 at 10:11am
I have to agree with tdar20.
I want the extension to F'burg at any cost. It will have to be better than the way it is now. If we wait on VDOT it wont happen until gridlock is allready in place (close now). I say build it now and see what happens...
John
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2003 at 11:35am
I am willing to discuss this and apologize for coming across as harsh or not tolerant of other views.
Its just that I feel very strongly about this. Let me put it in a practical way. Lets say we have HOT lanes in place. How many people would wait even a few minutes to pick up slugs if they could just pay $3 to get on HOV?
Bob
|
Posted By: gregory
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2003 at 12:04pm
|
Wow! $3 plus parking. That’s going to add up. How would you collect the tolls? Wouldn’t that cause a gridlock at the entrance spot. Maybe that could work going North but I don’t see how it (collecting a toll) could improve gridlock heading South. The congestion is really bad just leaving the city now. Where would you put the toll booths on the 14th street bridge? If you put a toll booth at every entrance point, even the HOV drivers would have to stop for verification. At $3-$5-$8 bucks a pop, how long would it take to pay for the improvements? Is the point of HOT to reduce congestion? How can that be done by adding vehicles and forcing all cars to stop for tolls or inspection. Is there another option? Maybe we can take some of the commuter tax away from DC to pay for the roads getting to DC (intentional gab)[:)]. I personally would like to see HOV-4 again and I think HOV-2 on I-66 is a joke.
|
Posted By: mroyal
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2003 at 12:43pm
I share Gregory's concern on how to collect toll. I think that toll booths would be completely out of the question. In addition, how will law enforcers be able to identify violators. It would have to be some sort of subscription (monthly?) with which a tag (hanging from the mirror?) could be issued.
I agree that we need to extend the HOV lanes, at least past Stafford. But, we should find a better way to fund it.
Kindest Regards,
mroyal
|
Posted By: SlugBuddy
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2003 at 12:46pm
If the police would just do their jobs and ticket violators, then the HOV lanes could be funded all the way to Fredericksburg. The police need to wait at the HOV exits and just hand out tickets to violators left and right. There are more violators on the HOV lanes these days than legal cars.
As for the toll thing working, it simply wouldn't. Traffic would back up trying to get through the toll gate. People who would be willing to pay the toll due to the Metrochek program and slugging would die. If people didn't have to pick up slugs, most wouldn't. Especially if part of their commuter fees were paid for.
|
Posted By: vabigblue
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2003 at 3:14pm
quote:
Originally posted by SlugBuddy
[br]If the police would just do their jobs and ticket violators, then the HOV lanes could be funded all the way to Fredericksburg. The police need to wait at the HOV exits and just hand out tickets to violators left and right. There are more violators on the HOV lanes these days than legal cars.
As for the toll thing working, it simply wouldn't. Traffic would back up trying to get through the toll gate. People who would be willing to pay the toll due to the Metrochek program and slugging would die. If people didn't have to pick up slugs, most wouldn't. Especially if part of their commuter fees were paid for.
I don't know if a toll system would "not" work to some extent, but if the government or private idustry is going to support tolls with a Metrochek type program, then the traffic and backup would be horrendous at all times. I mean, everyone would probably drive, just to qualify for Metrocheks. Essentially, tolls would be free if they go with that idea. In those cases, slugging would probably be something of the past.
|
Posted By: PSMITH4780
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2003 at 3:30pm
"Once the HOT lanes reached a certain capacity, they would be closed to any more traffic."
Sounds to me like it could be risky for all commuters if the above statement is true.
We could continue slugging, have the required number of people in the vehicle, approach the HOV (or HOT) lanes only to be turned away because the capacity has been reached - reached by who - people who don't have to play by the rules, but can simply buy their way down the HOV lanes?
[V]
|
Posted By: USA
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 1:00pm
quote:
Originally posted by PSMITH4780
[br]"Once the HOT lanes reached a certain capacity, they would be closed to any more traffic."
Sounds to me like it could be risky for all commuters if the above statement is true.
We could continue slugging, have the required number of people in the vehicle, approach the HOV (or HOT) lanes only to be turned away because the capacity has been reached - reached by who - people who don't have to play by the rules, but can simply buy their way down the HOV lanes?
[V]
"[D]on't have to play by the rules, but can simply buy their way"? If the lanes were changed to HOT, then wouldn't that BE playing by the rules?
(I'm not saying it would/should be popular here--just questioning your logic.)
|
Posted By: PSMITH4780
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 1:32pm
Yes, that would be the "new" rule if changed. But what's wrong with the current rule? Why does it have to be changed just because some people refuse to carpool?
Let them carpool or make them sit in traffic - that's what I say!
Don't let them clog up OUR High Occupancy Lanes by paying their way down the road while we find ourselves parked in the main lanes due to the max capacity being reached!
|
Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 1:56pm
Correct me if I am wrong someone, but PSMITH, I think you are misunderstanding something here.
The way I understand the "proposal" is if the HOT lanes have reached capacity, they will be closed to the paying single driver. It would not restrict those who have 3 people in thier vehicle.
A little common sense never hurts....try using some.
|
Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 2:37pm
|
The way things seem to be going, the "HOT" lane will never be open to single paying drivers. Well, maybe between 8:30 and 9 some mornings.
|
Posted By: PSMITH4780
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 2:45pm
|
KCWolfPck...the proposal states "they would be closed to any more traffic." Please tell me where it states it would only be closed to paying single drivers?
|
Posted By: Gomez
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 2:46pm
quote:
Originally posted by KCWolfPck
[br]Correct me if I am wrong someone, but PSMITH, I think you are misunderstanding something here.
No, it is YOU who are misunderstanding! The proposal in the top post of this string is unambiguous. It states:
quote:
[br]Once the HOT lanes reached a certain capacity, they would be closed to any more traffic.
"Any", in my copy of Webster's, does not mean (as you (mis)interpret):
quote:
[br]the paying single driver.
It means "any"! It is possible that the initial report is incorrect, but the report itself is very clear. If the report is accurate, legitimate carpools may be blocked out of entry into HOT lanes when they are deemed "too full", possibly due to overuse by quote:
[br]the paying single drivers.
Your final point remains valid, however:
quote:
[br]A little common sense never hurts....try using some.
|
Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 3:22pm
Well, I know what the top post says, but there is no way that would happen. Common sense would dictate that the author meant that the lanes would be closed to paying drivers. The article commonly refers to the HOT and HOV lanes as seperate entities even though they are sharing lanes that are not separated in any way. He refers to the lanes as dual purpose....both HOV and HOT. I think one could construe that perhaps the author meant that traffic would be closed to HOT lanes but not HOV lanes when a certain capacity is reached......meaning tolls would no longer be accepted, but vehicles with 3 or more would still be allowed to pass through.
The way you guys perceive the article is totally illogical and would never happen. So again I say.....use some common sense!!
|
Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 3:43pm
quote:
Originally posted by Gomez If the report is accurate, legitimate carpools may be blocked out of entry into HOT lanes when they are deemed "too full"
No....because a legitimate carpool vehicle would have 3 or more people and therefore not have to pay a toll. The legitimate carpooler would qualify as HOV and not have to resort to the HOT.
You do realize that:
HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle
HOT = High Occupancy Toll
Just curious....????
|
Posted By: SlugBuddy
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 3:44pm
|
Well WolfPck, do you know the old saying about what happens when you assume things to be fact?!?!? It makes an ASS out of U and ME. That report does not make it clear what the rule would be once the lanes reached capacity. If they would clarify it, then we wouldn't have speculate.
|
Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 3:47pm
|
By now all of the confused individuals are reading and saying to themselves, "Oh, I see.....DUH!!!!!". [:D][:D]
|
Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 3:50pm
quote:
Originally posted by SlugBuddy
[br]Well WolfPck, do you know the old saying about what happens when you assume things to be fact?!?!? It makes an ASS out of U and ME. That report does not make it clear what the rule would be once the lanes reached capacity. If they would clarify it, then we wouldn't have speculate.
It does make it clear....it specifically says that the HOT lanes would be closed any more traffic. Does it really need to say....., but rest assured the HOV lanes will remain open???? Come on....get real.
|
Posted By: SlugBuddy
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 3:53pm
|
No, that is still not clear. It would need to state that "persons not having the required amount of riders would not be allowed on the HOV lanes once it reaches a certain capacity.".
|
Posted By: PSMITH4780
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 3:56pm
|
No, we are just tired of hearing your assumptions.
|
Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 3:59pm
Well, I've made my point. I guess there will still be a few dense individuals who still dread the day that they can't get on the HOV even though they have the required passengers. How funny!!! Try reading comprehension 101....don't read just the one sentence. You have to take that sentence in context with the rest of the article.
Enough said!!
|
Posted By: SlugBuddy
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 4:13pm
|
Wolfpck, go crawl back under that rock you came out from under. Your negativity is not wanted here.
|
Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 4:37pm
|
My negativity??????? I was merely shedding positive light on the misguided and pessimistic perceptions that were very negative themselves. I gave them hope! They now see the light!!! They can now smile because they now know that carpoolers won't get shafted to the regular lanes!!! My negativity??? Haha!
|
Posted By: Gomez
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2003 at 5:14pm
quote:
Originally posted by KCWolfPck
[br]Well, I've made my point. I guess there will still be a few dense individuals who still dread the day that they can't get on the HOV even though they have the required passengers. How funny!!! Try reading comprehension 101....don't read just the one sentence. You have to take that sentence in context with the rest of the article.
Enough said!!
If your point is to demonstrate that you haven't a clue how (1) to read and comprehend, and (b) the "real world" works, then you have succeeded admirably. Allow me to explain in terms as condescending as the ones you choose how to "properly" interpret the original information posted:
HOV lanes will NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM BE DISTINGUISHED FROM HOT lanes. "HOT" will be the new name for all of these special use lanes. (Anybody with some "common sense" can see that "High-Occupancy Toll", or HOT, is an amalgam of two distinct concepts into ONE - those of (a) High-occupancy and (2) tolls. The "reasonable" interpretation is that ALL who try to get on will have to pass through some sort of (as yet unexplained) checkpoint, at which one either (1) demonstrates a sufficient number of passnegers, or (b) pays. After the checkpoint, all lanes are equal - none of them are "reserved" for HOV-only! (except in your Pollyanna view of the world). You contend that once the maximum capacity for the HOT lanes is reached, these checkpoints will SELECTIVELY allow those who meet only criterion (a) above pass, whilst turning away those attempting to get on via method (2). I contend that the information provided in the announcement pretty clearly states that access will be blocked for "ANY" additional vehicles, regardless of category (a) or (2) .
So the reasonable man might argue that YOUR interpretation is the one sorely lacking in common sense, while the rest of us Chicken Littles may in fact be right!
|
Posted By: gp23
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2003 at 3:10pm
I'm new to this forum, so forgive if I've got the wrong topic, but I'm hoping to reply to the HOT lanes topic.
Part of the problem as I see it, is regardless of chosen "solution", they're trying to solve today's problems with a solution that won't be complete until 8 or 9 years down the road (pardon the pun). What will the highway congestion problem look like then??
Or I could be completely wrong.
|
Posted By: SlugBuddy
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2003 at 4:21pm
|
That's always been VDOT's problem (and Stafford County's too). They always put the cart before the horse. They build roads after the homes are all built instead of planning ahead.
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2003 at 9:45am
Hot lanes plan motoring along
Proposals could be a reality by 2010
Chris Newman
Potomac News
Friday, December 5, 2003
When high-occupancy toll lanes opened on southern California's State Route 91 in 1995, single-occupancy drivers paid a toll and avoided one of the state's most congested roads between Orange and Riverside counties.
By 2010, Prince William commuters may get the same option on Interstate 95 north to Springfield and on the Capital Beltway all the way to Tysons Corner.
Instead of sitting in 20 to 60 minutes of congested traffic, toll lane users in California cover 10 miles in less than 10 minutes.
The California high-occupancy toll lanes, or HOT lanes, are free to HOV-3 vehicles and buses. Peak tolls between 4 and 6 p.m. have gradually increased from $2.75 in 1997 to $5.50 this year. This was to keep the lanes free flowing during "super-peak times" when 3,200 to 3,299 vehicles an hour use the lanes in one direction.
Two separate public-private HOT lane proposals worth a combined $1.3 billion have been submitted to Virginia officials:
? The Flour Daniel Co. has a $800 million proposal to add four HOT lanes to the Beltway from Springfield to the Dulles Toll Road. The proposal is modeled after the California project, with toll lanes separated from regular lanes by a four-foot painted asphalt buffer and plastic poles. Flour submitted its plan in June 2002. No competing proposals were submitted, and state officials could approve it by summer 2004.
? A consortium of Shirley Contracting Co., Clark Construction Group and Koch Performance Roads Inc. submitted a $500 million public-private proposal in September to convert the two HOV lanes on Interstate 95 to three HOT lanes south from the Beltway to U.S. 17 in Stafford. A 120-day advertisement period ends March 17, during which other firms can offer competing proposals. A Flour Daniel official said they are considering a bid on that project.
"Folks coming from Woodbridge to Tysons Corner or Fair Oaks, Merrifield, all those locations in Fairfax, would see a tremendous benefit," said Virginia Deputy Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer. Homer chairs the state advisory panel that is evaluating Flour Daniel's Beltway proposal.
The panel met for the first time this week. It will hold public hearings in mid-to-late January. The Commonwealth Transportation Board has final say on the plan, which also must meet the criteria of an environmental impact statement process that is expected to conclude by late 2004.
The panel listened to Flour Daniel's detailed presentation which was released to the public a month ago online at http://www.virginiadot.org. A written record of the panel's questions and answers to Flour Daniel will be posted online as well.
"The job of this panel is to ask very hard questions of the proposal," said Pierce, a former Prince William chief deputy executive.
The plan has a base price of $693.4 million for 12 miles of toll lanes with interchanges at Interstate 66 and the Dulles Toll Road and five slip ramp connections at Braddock Road, U.S. 50 (Arlington Boulevard), Va. 123 (Chain Bridge Road) and Va. 193 (Georgetown Pike).
At additional cost, interchanges could be built at Braddock Road, $30.8 million; U.S. 50, $26.4 million; and Va. 123, $26.4 million.
No cash tolls would be collected. Instead, tolls would be electronically taken from transponders in vehicles similar to EZPass or SmartTag so that traffic does not slow down. HOV-3 users and buses would enter in a left lane and not need a transponder. Cameras aimed at entering cars would enforce tolls and counts of high-occupancy vehicles.
"There will be people staffed 24 hours a day actively managing these lanes with more than 100 cameras," said Flour Daniel senior planner Gary Groat.
The eighth phase of the Springfield Interchange project -- a direct HOV connection from I-95 to the Beltway -- was cut by state officials to control the project's escalating costs. This piece is critical for predictable bus service from I-95 to the Beltway because without it buses would have to merge into regular lanes and then onto HOT lanes to get to Tysons.
It is an option under Flour Daniel's plan and is in the Shirley-Clark-Koch I-95 proposal as well.
Construction of Beltway toll lanes go from late 2005 to late 2009.
Tolls would be paid until 2044 to pay off the project bonds.
Under Flour Daniel's plan, lane widths and road design will meet current federal highway standards: the four regular lanes at 12 feet each are kept with a right-side shoulder. The toll lanes would have left-side shoulders with a retaining wall in the middle.
"The Beltway will be safer with HOT lanes than it is today," Groat said.
By comparison, the HOT lane proposal for I-95 would convert the two 12-foot HOV lanes and its 12-foot and 15-foot shoulders though Prince William to three 12-foot HOT lanes and 6-foot and 9-foot shoulders.
Fairfax County officials and residents criticized an initial environmental study last year that showed that more than 200 homes and 20 to 30 businesses would be displaced by a Beltway widening costing $2.5 billion to $3.25 billion.
Flour Daniel officials said their base proposal only displaces six homes because the earlier study "tried to solve too many problems." Their plan works mostly within existing Beltway right-of-way to lessen the impact. By not widening the cross-section of right-of-way they were able to cut out two-thirds of the cost, Groat said.
Environmentalists opposed the initial study because it did not include mass transit options, which state officials said would have required more displacement of homes and businesses because of stations. Localities like Prince William with OmniRide could expand their regular bus service or create bus rapid transit, Groat said.
One point raised by the advisory panel were that the cash-strapped state police force under the plan would enforce the HOT lane policies. Police would have to wait until violators exit the toll lanes, then weave through Beltway traffic to the right shoulder. Whether access is a slip ramp or direct interchange at some locations is important -- if Tysons draws a lot of traffic, the lack of ramps directly onto U.S. 7 or Va. 123 could cause regular backups into the toll lanes because the base proposal has access by slip ramps into regular Beltway lanes, panel members said.
The panel also pointed out that Flour Daniel did not include right-of-way costs for its add-on options.
Staff writer Chris Newman can be reached at (703) 878-8062.
spcr
|
Posted By: mroyal
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2003 at 2:38pm
Thanks Bob,
It's a little confusing with the journalist jumping between the two different proposals, but I am left with the question. If it's feasible and safe to convert the two HOV lanes to three lane, why doesn't the state DOT just do it? It can't be that costly. And nevermind the HOT.
Kindest Regards,
mroyal
|
Posted By: Gomez
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2003 at 11:15am
quote:
Originally posted by mroyal
[br]Thanks Bob,
It's a little confusing with the journalist jumping between the two different proposals, but I am left with the question. If it's feasible and safe to convert the two HOV lanes to three lane, why doesn't the state DOT just do it? It can't be that costly. And nevermind the HOT.
Kindest Regards,
mroyal
I'll tell you why. MONEY! Somebody at Shirley Contracting Co., Clark Construction Group and Koch Performance Roads Inc. has somebody at VDOT in their hip pocket and this is gonna happen. It doesn't matter what the taxpayers want.
|
Posted By: tdar20
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2003 at 11:34am
|
In some areas it is the result of too much progress. We cant stop the overcrowding and this is one possible solution. We need to hear more before passing judgement. If we continue to gorw, and we will you can count on that this is one thing that has to be explored as a proposal. If you have a better idea submit it instead of just bashing the ones submitted.
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2003 at 12:11pm
We dont have to propose another idea and we do have the right to bash this if it is our judgement that it is bad for slugging. I believe a few people bashed the Disney proposal and it is now almost universally agreed that it would have been a disaster for traffic.
Bob
|
Posted By: wdossel
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2003 at 1:05pm
quote:
Originally posted by Bob
[br]We dont have to propose another idea and we do have the right to bash this if it is our judgement that it is bad for slugging. I believe a few people bashed the Disney proposal and it is now almost universally agreed that it would have been a disaster for traffic.
Bob
Absolutely concur -- and we need to be more vocal as it appears the Fairfax County supervisors voiced their approval of this wretched concept last night...
- Will
|
Posted By: SlugBuddy
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2003 at 4:28pm
|
As I said before, we need to stand up and fight this. This will kill slugging and we will be left paying these stupid tolls.
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2003 at 6:11pm
Here is the letter I just sent to several representatives. You are welcome to send it also.
December 8, 2003
Sirs:
This letter is to express my concern about the proposal before VDOT
to convert the I95/395 HOV lane into a HOT lane. As you know, there
are two regional proposals that have been submitted. One is for
adding lanes to the Virginia Beltway and the other is to convert the
95/395 lanes to HOT lanes. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
has apparently just endorsed the beltway proposal. My concern is
that Prince William County or other jurisdictions may endorse the
95/395 proposal.
Conversion of the existing HOV system on 95/395 would cause
congestion and drastically reduce the incentive for mass transit in
this corridor. I have studied this proposal in detail. It would re-
stripe the existing roadway up to Springfield to make three lanes.
The portion of the HOV lane inside the beltway would remain as it is.
This is a recipe for a massive bottleneck at Springfield where three
lanes would go down to two. A key assumption of any proposal to
convert 95/395 is that there is adequate unused capacity to do this.
This is an incorrect assumption. HOV usage has soared in the past
few years and traffic is routinely heavy. There is no room to allow
thousands of single passenger vehicles into this roadway, especially
inside the beltway. And a few years down the road... no way!
Another factor that is never mentioned in any of the newspaper
articles is the impact on regional air pollution if we reduce the
incentive to carpool. As people give up on the HOV system, then we
are back to where most other cities are without a viable HOV system
and air pollution would be much worse.
Finally, what are the implications of letting the private sector fund
such projects? It seems to me that state and local governments would
be giving up control in the event of problems. In other words, the
private sector would be free to set tolls or do anything they want to
maximize revenue, and I don't believe the local goverments could do
much about it. And if (when) it fouls up HOV, it would be too late
to go back since the companies would have invested millions of
dollars.
Sincerely,
|
Posted By: tulipgirl67
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2003 at 9:40am
HOT lanes will not help manage growth and congestion.
If the HOT lanes make commuting easier for those willing to pay the toll, then more people will just move south to Stafford County and beyond. Then we will have more traffic and more congestion. Actually a commute involving a little hassle (such as we have now) may be a good thing for Stafford. It won't kill growth, but it may make some people think twice about moving there.
|
|