Board Delays Action on Va. HOT Lane Proposal

I-66 Widening Also Stalls as Transportation Planners Remain Evenly Divided

Members of a regional transportation board voted yesterday to delay action on new toll lanes on Interstate 95/395 and an extra lane on Interstate 66, saying there were too many unanswered safety questions.

The I-95/395 project would convert two existing carpool lanes into three "high-occupancy toll" or HOT lanes. Tolls would fluctuate based on the amount of traffic to ensure that the lanes remain free-flowing. Carpools of three or more and buses could use the lanes for free.

The I-66 project would add a third westbound lane inside the Capital Beltway by linking existing acceleration and deceleration lanes. The panel will reconsider the projects May 16.

Members of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board -- who need to sign off on the projects for them to move forward -- were evenly divided, an indication of just how contentious these proposed improvements are.

An initial tie vote on whether to delay consideration of both projects for a month was broken by the chairwoman, Catherine M. Hudgins, of Fairfax. A Virginia representative asked for a second tally, this time using a rarely invoked process in which votes are weighted according to jurisdiction. The result was 7.81 votes in favor of a delay, 7.19 votes against.

"The project has many merits, but it's important that [board] members feel comfortable," Hudgins said, referring to the HOT lane proposal. She said more time would allow members to study public comments and project revisions proposed at the last minute.

A main concern was whether the two projects, which would add lanes within the existing highway footprints, would include sufficiently wide and safe shoulders.

Representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation said there will probably be areas of both projects where the shoulders would not be the optimal 12 feet wide, but that the project's design will try to incorporate as many safety features as possible.

The Federal Highway Administration would have to approve any reductions in shoulder width.

Other concerns involved how the projects would accommodate future transit improvements. On I-95, questions centered on whether a new third lane should be dedicated to buses. Project planners said they will study a separate lane but made no promises.

On I-66, VDOT officials tried to assure members that the project would not encroach on the Custis bike trail or remove the option for adding a third Metro track down the middle of the highway.

Ronald F. Kirby, director of planning for the transportation board, said he could not remember a closer board vote on any issue.

"These are complex projects and the details are terribly important,'' Kirby said.