The West Side Joint Mobility Study will be led by the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) and supported by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The 14-mile long project extends north from SR 193 in Virginia, along the west side of the Capital Beltway, along the I-270 West Spur, along I-270, to the I-370 Interchange.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate a managed lane system connecting Virginia's HOT Study, Maryland's Capital Beltway Study, Maryland's I-270 Multi-Modal Study, and Maryland’s Intercounty Connector. The study schedule is expected to be completed in Summer 2007.

For more detailed information select one of the items below or scroll down:

• Project Scope
• Roadway Sections
• Alternatives
• Current Efforts

Project Scope

The study has been underway since the middle of 2006 and it includes the following tasks:

• Evaluate how many trips would be willing to utilize a managed lane along this section of the highway.
• Evaluate how existing and future traffic will operate with a managed lane.
• Evaluate how many lanes may be needed for a managed lane system to operate effectively.
• Develop engineering alternatives to fit the managed lanes within the existing highway system.
• Evaluate potential impacts associated with construction of new managed lanes, including property impacts and environmental impacts.
• Develop cost estimates for the engineering alternatives.
  Prepare a Technical Report summarizing the study efforts and conclusions.

Top

Roadway Sections

The project is separated into five sections as described below:

1. Virginia portion of the Capital Beltway from the northern limit of VDOT’s HOT Lane Study to the American Legion Bridge
2. American Legion Bridge
3. Maryland portion of the Capital Beltway from the American Legion Bridge to the I-270 West Spur
4. I-270 West Spur
5. I-270 from the West Spur to the I-370 Interchange

Top

Alternatives

The State Highway Administration has identified five alternatives as part of this study. Three of the alternatives cover a full range of options and they are identified as low, medium, and high. The name of the alternatives relates to the cost, impacts, and the timeframe to get the improvements opened (i.e. the low alternative would have lower costs, lower impacts, and be able to open in the least amount of time). Additionally, there are two other alternatives that are being considered as part of the study. The type of managed lanes that are under consideration for these alternatives include high occupancy toll lanes (HOT) and express toll lanes (ETL).

Low
Alternative 1: Operate a one-lane managed lane system in Maryland and a two-lane managed lane system in Virginia.

How would this be accomplished?

• Maryland: Convert the existing HOV lane on I-270 to a managed lane (See Typical Section 6)
• Maryland: Construct one new managed lane per direction on the Capital Beltway (See Typical Section 3)
• Virginia: Construct two new managed lanes in the median (See Typical Section 1)

Medium
Alternative 5: Operate a two-lane managed lane system in Maryland.

How would this be accomplished?

• Maryland: Convert the existing HOV lane on I-270 to a managed lane and restripe the I-270 mainline lanes to accommodate one new lane (no widening) (See Typical Section 17)
• Maryland: Construct one new managed lane per direction on the Capital Beltway. Convert one general purpose lane to a managed lane (See Typical Section 8)
• Virginia: Construct two new managed lanes in the median (See Typical Section 1)

High
Alternative 4: Operate a two-lane managed lane system in Maryland.

How would this be accomplished?

• Maryland: Convert the existing HOV lane on I-270 to a managed lane and widen I-270 mainline to accommodate one new lane. Move concrete barrier from between the general purpose and local lanes to between the managed lanes and the general purpose lanes (See Typical Section 14)
• Maryland: Construct one new managed lane per direction on the Capital Beltway. Convert one general purpose lane to a managed lane (See Typical Section 8)
• Virginia: Construct two new managed lanes in the median (See Typical Section 1)

Other Alternatives
Alternative 2: Operate a two-lane managed lane system in Maryland.

How would this be accomplished?

• Maryland: Convert the existing HOV lane on I-270 to a managed lane and convert one general purpose lane to a managed lane. Move concrete barrier from between the general purpose and local lanes to between the managed lanes and the general purpose lanes (See Typical Section 11)
• Maryland: Construct one new managed lane per direction on the Capital Beltway. Convert one general purpose lane to a managed lane (See Typical Section 8)
• Virginia: Construct two new managed lanes in the median (See Typical Section 1)

Alternative 3: Operate a two-lane managed lane system in Maryland.

How would this be accomplished?

• Maryland: Convert the existing HOV lane on I-270 to a managed lane and widen I-270 mainline to accommodate one new lane. Move concrete barrier from between the general purpose and local lanes to between the managed lanes and the general purpose lanes (See Typical Section 14)
• Maryland: Construct one new managed lane per direction on the Capital Beltway. Convert one general purpose lane to a managed lane (See Typical Section 8)
• Virginia: Construct two new managed lanes in the median (See Typical Section 1)

Top

Current Efforts

The study team has completed the engineering efforts and has developed the proposed traffic volumes for the alternatives.

The study team is currently working on the potential impacts and cost estimates for the alternatives, as well as analyzing the operations of the proposed traffic volumes.

Top