Virginia

[NJRoadfan]

I was really hoping that VA would get rid of Vehicle Inspections because maybe that would put pressure on NC to get rid of ours. 

The $5 fee for people to visit the DMV over going online would also be a good idea for NC to take. (Overcrowded is an understatement in the Tar Heel State)

Even NJ managed to get rid of safety inspections and emissions inspections on pre-OBD2 vehicles. One thing they do that is really annoying is charge credit card surcharges if paying motor vehicle registration fees online. I understand there is a merchant fee to be recovered, but how much does it cost them to process check payments which involves actually people to handle them?

[LM117]

I was really hoping that VA would get rid of Vehicle Inspections because maybe that would put pressure on NC to get rid of ours.

Hell, I'd settle for VA doing away with stickers and going electronic like NC did years ago.

The $5 fee for people to visit the DMV over going online would also be a good idea for NC to take. (Overcrowded is an understatement in the Tar Heel State)

Depends on where one is in NC. When I lived near Goldsboro, the license plate office was usually a breeze and the DMV driver's license office wasn't too bad. I don't doubt that it's worse in the more urban areas, though.

[RoadPelican]

Times have changed, the problem right now is the Real ID, fortunately the NCDMV has come out this past week and said "it's not required", but when I went to the NCDMV in rural Rockingham County in March 2019, to change my out of state info, I had to wait 3 HOURS!  I got there 15 mins before they opened and there were still 15-20 ahead of me! 

They say make an appointment, the problem is NO ONE answers the phone! and there is no online system in place yet.

On the other hand, I was in and out of the license plate office in 15 mins!

[VTGoose]

All in all, nothing to like in this legislation, but gas will STILL probably be cheaper in VA over NC, now just not as much.

If the road use tax increases are so great, then why the need to float $900 million in bonds to expedite I-81 upgrades?

Those bonds are a loan that will have to be paid off in installments over a 20 to 30 year period.

The key is right there: expedite. How long will it take to put money in the coffers to pay for I-81 improvements that should have been built 10 (or more) years ago? At least with the bonds, the top projects on the list can be put under contract pretty much right away, with the gas tax stream there to pay off the bonds in the future. One has to balance the cost of the interest against the cost of doing nothing while daily wrecks tally up expenses (and the occasional life). Sell those bonds and get to work!

[1995hoo]

The Washington Post's article states, but without any detail, that a fee will be imposed on hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners pay less or no gas tax. Makes sense to me. Naturally, they're already whining about it being unfair and unjust because they think their not being taxed is a "reward" for buying a more efficient car.

[AlexandriaVA]

The Washington Post's article states, but without any detail, that a fee will be imposed on hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners pay less or no gas tax. Makes sense to me. Naturally, they're already whining about it being unfair and unjust because they think their not being taxed is a "reward" for buying a more efficient car.

I think you're being a little harsh. After all, when these owners bought their cars, the gas tax was just that - a tax on gasoline purchases. The fact that the gas tax revenues are lower when you include hybrids and electrics is a fault of the taxing system, not the owners who played by the rules.

That said, I agree that the gas tax is an imperfect, since what you really want is a road-use tax when you think about it. That's why a mileage-driven tax system is probably the best*, although I'm at a loss for thinking of ways to implement it. Gasoline usage was/is merely a proxy for miles driven.

[oscar]

Pending details on how hybrid cars get taxed, it could affect my Prius. It's not a plug-in, so it's entirely gas-fueled. It's also a low-mileage vehicle (only a few thousand miles a year), since it's rather elderly, and my newer (non-hybrid) car now handles most of my non-local travel. So if the surcharge is a flat annual fee, it will sting me especially hard.

There was an earlier attempt in Virginia to surcharge hybrids, which got undone after public reaction. Could happen again?

[1995hoo]

The Washington Post's article states, but without any detail, that a fee will be imposed on hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners pay less or no gas tax. Makes sense to me. Naturally, they're already whining about it being unfair and unjust because they think their not being taxed is a "reward" for buying a more efficient car.

I think you're being a little harsh. After all, when these owners bought their cars, the gas tax was just that - a tax on gasoline purchases. The fact that the gas tax revenues are lower when you include hybrids and electrics is a fault of the taxing system, not the owners who played by the rules.

Well, here's part of why I react that way: Many of those people are the same people who complain about tolls and say "the gas tax was supposed to pay for the roads." In other words, "make everybody pay except me." As a practical matter, I get it why they wouldn't be thrilled about having to pay a tax or fee they didn't pay before. Nobody likes having that happen. But as an intellectual matter, it seems reasonable to me that if you're using the roads, you have to pay something towards maintaining the roads, whether that's via the gas tax or some other means.

That said, I agree that the gas tax is an imperfect, since what you really want is a road-use tax when you think about it. That's why a mileage-driven tax system is probably the best*, although I'm at a loss for thinking of ways to implement it. Gasoline usage was/is merely a proxy for miles driven.

The biggest practical problem I see with that system is that there has to be a way to compensate each jurisdiction for your use of their roads. That is, suppose I worked in Annapolis but lived where I do now and drove to work each day. Most of my driving would be on Maryland's roads. There would need to be some way to compensate Maryland for that. But the idea of GPS monitoring or similar is really sinister and rife with the opportunity for abuse.

[AlexandriaVA]

Don't disagree with your sentiments. There will always be winners and losers in any taxing regimen.

[Thing 342]

The Washington Post's article states, but without any detail, that a fee will be imposed on hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners pay less or no gas tax. Makes sense to me. Naturally, they're already whining about it being unfair and unjust because they think their not being taxed is a "reward" for buying a more efficient car.

I think you're being a little harsh. After all, when these owners bought their cars, the gas tax was just that - a tax on gasoline purchases. The fact that the gas tax revenues are lower when you include hybrids and electrics is a fault of the taxing system, not the owners who played by the rules.

That said, I agree that the gas tax is an imperfect, since what you really want is a road-use tax when you think about it. That's why a mileage-driven tax system is probably the best*, although I'm at a loss for thinking of ways to implement it. Gasoline usage was/is merely a proxy for miles driven.

The original legislation actually had language that created a pilot program for implementing a VMT-based tax on vehicles with plugs. I'm guessing that got stripped out in this compromise bill, along with the section on speeding cameras.

[sprjus4]

The Southeastern Parkway has been discussed since the late 1970's, yet nothing has been done to complete it.  Hold on, there was the proposed routing.  I know about that because in the 1980's, there were small signs posted on Elbow Road to let one know that this was where the future route of the Southeastern Parkway was going to be built.  Now, if this was attempted in the late 1980's, the proposed routing on the interactive map (section from VA 168 northeast of Great Bridge to I-264 in Va. Beach) could have been built without much disruption to houses and businesses.  Now, forget about it!  Also, why would the section next to the Oak Grove Connector be built?  That would be silly and redundant.

As of 2010, this was the proposed routing. It's very similar / the same to the southern alternative outlined in the Location Study in the 1980s.


Back in the 1980s when the concept was introduced, it was mainly to traverse wetlands and forested areas, despite large amounts of farmland also available in the path. This was one of its biggest issues from the beginning. Today, the only path that remains available is that wetlands and forested path as all of the farmland now has been largely developed. Had they chosen a less impactful route from the beginning when there was lots of land, it more than likely would've been built in some form.

It was also originally planned as an 8-lane freeway for its entire length. This has been downsized to a 4-lane freeway with tolls in the more recent proposals.

Despite the map showing a new (incorrect) routing parallel to the Oak Grove Connector, the actual proposal ties into the Great Bridge Bypass south of Kempsville and overlays it up to I-64. This would involve 8-lane widening of the Oak Grove Connector, though with today's volumes it needs widening to 8-lanes down to VA-165 including a new parallel Intracoastal Waterway bridge regardless if the parkway is built. The 2045 LRTP Candidate Projects features a project to do this, along with widening to 6-lanes between VA-165 and Hillcrest Pkwy.

If there's -any- chance of it ever resurrecting, it would have to be built in phases and utilize existing roadways where possible.

Here are potential SIUs in order of priority -
1) VA-168 widening to 8-lanes
2) VA-168 to Elbow Road east of Centerville Tpke - New location 4-lane freeway, tying into the proposed Elbow Rd 4-lane project.
3) Princess Anne Rd to Oceana Blvd - New location 4-lane freeway
4) Oceana Blvd to I-264 - Upgrade the existing Oceana Blvd to freeway standards using the existing footprint of the 55 mph expressway (with the 30 ft median), then new connector to I-264 on the northern end.
5) Elbow Rd at Virginia Beach city line to Princess Anne Rd - New location 4-lane freeway tying into the proposed Elbow Rd 4-lane project on the western end and a completed Southeastern Pkwy segment on the eastern end.
6) Elbow Rd between east of Centerville Tpke and the Virginia Beach city line - Upgrade the proposed Elbow Road 4-lane project to freeway standards using the existing footprint of the proposed project which if I recall would be built to at least expressway standards (wider curves, paved shoulders, etc.) (likely a reduced 30 ft median).

Speaking of Elbow Rd, the city of Chesapeake is set to begin construction in the next couple of years on Elbow Rd phase #2 which would widen Elbow Rd between east of Centerville Tpke and the Virginia Beach city line to have 12 foot lanes and a right 4 foot paved shoulder with right of way for future 4-lane. Options include a typical widening, whereas another would build a new one-way 1-lane carriageway parallel to the existing, convert the existing to one-way 1-lane, and have a 2-lane expressway divided by a depressed median.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Brochures/Citizen+Information+Meeting+-+Elbow+Road+Widening+Phase+2+Brochure.pdf

Two of the three other projects that SELC opposes and the one that would be under "close scrutiny" are needed.  No, Nimmo Parkway does not need to be extended to Sandbridge Road.  There has to be some rustic charm left in Va. Beach.  When my family lived there, we preferred going to Sandbridge rather than the Va. Beach Oceanfront--more laid back and quiet.

Debateful. Sandbridge remains the beach primarily for locals, but Sandbridge Rd sees a high amount of traffic during the summer, and the roadway has too many substandard features to handle this load, including narrow roadway, sharp curves, etc. and not to mention it's subject to flooding. The parkway extension would only be 2-lanes, not 4-lanes. IMO, it's needed.

There are many projects on this interactive map that really needed to be completed 20-25 years ago--mainly road widenings and the Southeastern Parkway.

Agreed the Southeastern Pkwy is needed, though in today's environment it will never be built.

Has the FHWA and ACOE ever approved it?  It has very high wetlands impacts for 21 miles of highway.

No, and will likely never will, but nonetheless it's a needed project that should've been built 40 years ago when proposed in the 1980s as an 8-lane freeway. Now, it's been downsized to a 4-lane toll road, wetland impacts seem to have gone up, the cost has skyrocketed, and close proximity to newer developments presents further challenges.

Priority will be seen on these projects, IMO.

The Bowers Hill Interchange is a priority, though the US-58 / US-13 / US-460 connector study was scrapped by VDOT last year. It'd be nice to have and will eventually be needed, though it's an expensive project and there's higher priorities in the area. The existing highway is a high-capacity 6-lane expressway that practically functions as a 70 mph freeway that doesn't have any traffic issues unless there's an accident. I'd argue widening the Suffolk Bypass to 6-lanes is a higher priority then upgrading the connector. Once the major widenings and bridge-tunnel expansions are completed in the next 10 years, then we can turn the focus on these smaller priority, more expensive projects.

Full freeway standards like the southerly approved route CBA 1 as approved by the CTB in 2005 and the Final EIS and Record of Decision was signed and approved by FHWA in 2008.

The entire corridor would have to go through an entirely new NEPA process if it was ever resurrected.

Given today's climate, projects such as the US-460 relocation and the Southeastern Pkwy may never see the light of day. The only possible way I could see it if it was built in bite size phases, though if the Suffolk to Zuni proposal was any indication, that may not even be possible.

^

Interesting enough, the map has been updated between now and the time of this post.

Instead of showing a rough route of the entire parkway, it now shows two specific projects -
Southeastern Pkwy and Greenbelt - Phase I - Between London Bridge Rd and Princess Anne Rd
Southeastern Pkwy and Greenbelt - Phase II - Between Princess Anne Rd and Chesapeake City Line

The rest of the alignment has been removed. The project is still proposed as 4 lanes.

With this change, is it possible they are still trying to get it built, now in phases?

Here's another interesting find, in a History article from the Virginian Pilot from back in February 2020. The highway proposal at the time was downsized from 8 lanes from the 1980s study to 4 lanes, along with the elimination of two interchanges. The cost estimate for an 8-lane freeway in 1991 was $515 million, and a 4-lane freeway was $300 million. Around 2010, the cost estimate per VDOT's site is $1 billion, though more recent SYIP cost estimates have shown near $5 billion. As the 2045 LRTP is studied more in depth and cost estimates are determined this month, new estimates would be released. This could be either the entire parkway, along with these two phases alone. As I said before, phases is the only way this project will ever get built, and I suppose it's easiest to start on the low impact areas then tackle the more expensive and complex segments later.

1991 - Trying to salvage plans for a superhighway that would run through southern Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, the councils of both cities reluctantly accept a state proposal for a road half as wide and 40% cheaper. The state's plan scales down the $515 million Southeastern Expressway from eight lanes to four and eliminates two interchanges, reducing the cost of the project to around $300 million. The proposed 21-mile road would run roughly from the Virginia-Beach-Norfolk Expressway near First Colonial Road, south along the eastern edge of the Oceana Naval Air Station, then southwest toward Chesapeake, crossing the city line south of Stumpy Lake. There the highway would continue west, linking up to the Interstate 64/464 interchange at Doziers Corner in Chesapeake, forming a beltway around the two cities.

Keep in mind, the VA-168 Oak Grove Connector wasn't built at the time of this publication, it was completed in 1999. About 3 miles of the proposed route has technically been built, from I-64 / I-464 to the Great Bridge Bypass, since.
https://www.pilotonline.com/history/vp-nk-back-superhighway-0223-20200217-dd5jzns7y5eove5cpfqad36uca-story.html

[1995hoo]

The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.

[sprjus4]

The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.

Indeed. https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB63/2020

Glad to see it finally through.

[Beltway]

The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.

Indeed. https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB63/2020
Glad to see it finally through.

Speeders still won't be satisfied.

Their ultimate wish is "derestricted speed limits."

[sprjus4]

Speeders still won't be satisfied.

Their ultimate wish is "derestricted speed limits."

Nonsense. For me, a comfortable cruising speed is around 82 mph. I'm entirely satisfied with the increase, and is much more reasonable. 81 mph is -not- reckless, any way you slice it. Please explain why 11 mph over the speed limit warrants a reckless driving charge that has the potential to be punished by up to a year in jail / a fine of $2,500. Above 85 mph, it's questionable, but certainly getting up there. Ideally, I'd say cut the upper limit and leave it to 20 mph over (meaning 90 mph is reckless for 70 mph), but this is certainly good enough. This means reckless driving is above 20 mph over for any limit, except 70 mph where it would be above 15 mph over. I'd say the vast majority of current "reckless" drivers won't be in the new "reckless" category. I've stated before (actually in another post today) that 85 mph is the maximum I would comfortably hit, and that was on a road posted at 85 mph. I had no desire to exceed the limit, though was also not trying to be under it.

[Jmiles32]

Near my neck of the woods, Prince William County will soon be constructing a $55 million dollar interchange project on VA-234, a major and increasingly busy corridor that somewhat acts as an outer beltway to the DC area. This project will eliminate the lights at both VA-234 Business and at Brentsville Road/PW Pkwy. Very unique and creative interchange IMO that will seemingly save a lot of money while also eliminating a frequent cause for backups.   
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Route%20234%20Brentsville%20Road%20Interchange%20Project%20PIM%20Brochure.pdf

Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

Important to note that both of these projects are being administered by PWCDOT not VDOT.

[sprjus4]

Near my neck of the woods, Prince William County will soon be constructing a $55 million dollar interchange project on VA-234, a major and increasingly busy corridor that somewhat acts as an outer beltway to the DC area. This project will eliminate the lights at both VA-234 Business and at Brentsville Road/PW Pkwy. Very unique and creative interchange IMO that will seemingly save a lot of money while also eliminating a frequent cause for backups.   
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Route%20234%20Brentsville%20Road%20Interchange%20Project%20PIM%20Brochure.pdf

Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

Important to note that both of these projects are being administered by PWCDOT not VDOT.

The more lights removed on VA-234, the better. IMO, that bypass of Manassas should've been built as a full freeway when it was built only 20 years ago. Whoever thought an expressway design with signals would be appropriate in a rapidly growing area was clearly not thinking for anything beyond 10 years.

[Jmiles32]

Near my neck of the woods, Prince William County will soon be constructing a $55 million dollar interchange project on VA-234, a major and increasingly busy corridor that somewhat acts as an outer beltway to the DC area. This project will eliminate the lights at both VA-234 Business and at Brentsville Road/PW Pkwy. Very unique and creative interchange IMO that will seemingly save a lot of money while also eliminating a frequent cause for backups.   
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Route%20234%20Brentsville%20Road%20Interchange%20Project%20PIM%20Brochure.pdf

Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

Important to note that both of these projects are being administered by PWCDOT not VDOT.

The more lights removed on VA-234, the better. IMO, that bypass of Manassas should've been built as a full freeway when it was built only 20 years ago. Whoever thought an expressway design with signals would be appropriate in a rapidly growing area was clearly not thinking for anything beyond 10 years.

Agreed. It's especially frustrating when the right of way is practically a non-issue. I believe an additional type of innovative intersection is also planned for the current light at Clover Hill Road. However, at the moment this project is not yet fully funded.
http://www.virginiadot.org/info/innovative_intersections_and_interchanges/Bowtie.asp

[Beltway]

Speeders still won't be satisfied.
Their ultimate wish is "derestricted speed limits."

Nonsense.

Go out and look online.  Many articles from motorist advocacy groups over the last 20+ years.

Magazine articles by the likes of Car and Driver from the 60s onward.

[Beltway]

The more lights removed on VA-234, the better. IMO, that bypass of Manassas should've been built as a full freeway when it was built only 20 years ago. Whoever thought an expressway design with signals would be appropriate in a rapidly growing area was clearly not thinking for anything beyond 10 years.

Lots of development and changes in the last 20 years.

VA-234 south of the bypass is an access-managed but not limited access highway, except for the Independent Hill bypass which is an expressway; so that was capacity-limiting of the corridor when built.

[froggie]

Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

While I agree an interchange would be optimum, it's worth nothing that the proposal here both adds a 3rd lane in each direction on 234 through the intersection and eliminates all left turns at the existing intersection, which means it'll operate with a much simpler two-phase signal (i.e. more green time for through movements).

[LM117]

The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.

Glad he signed it. I was starting to wonder if it had gotten lost in the shuffle. At any rate, this was 10 years overdue.

[Jmiles32]

Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

While I agree an interchange would be optimum, it's worth nothing that the proposal here both adds a 3rd lane in each direction on 234 through the intersection and eliminates all left turns at the existing intersection, which means it'll operate with a much simpler two-phase signal (i.e. more green time for through movements).

Believe me, when this project is complete in late 2022 it will be by far better than the current intersections at Balls Ford Road, Sudley Manor Drive, Wellington Road, Business 234, and Brentsville Road/ PW Pkwy. However, by the eventual time that all these lights are gone (Sudley Manor/Wellington Road interchange is the only one left that still needs funding), this new at-grade University Blvd intersection (along with Clover Hill Road) will soon become inadequate, annoying, and an unfortunate missed opportunity. Don't think that 3rd lane will help much either since it'll barely even be half a mile long and thru traffic will quickly discover that it ain't worth leaving their lane only to have quickly merge back. Now if the 3rd lane was planned to be extended in the future than I would maybe reconsider...

Also to be clear, I am not advocating for every traffic light on VA-234 to be turned into an interchange. Only the portion north of the PW Pkwy (Manassas Bypass) would I like to see get the same treatment as VA-28 and VA-7. South of there, I would just like to see no more additional traffic lights if possible but am all for new innovative intersections if they improve traffic flow. Currently, I find taking US-29/US-15 to US-17 faster than taking VA-234/I-95 to get to Fredricksburg and points south.

[Beltway]

The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.

Glad he signed it. I was starting to wonder if it had gotten lost in the shuffle. At any rate, this was 10 years overdue.

And some people will be satisfied with it for about, oh, 10 minutes ...

[sprjus4]

The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.

Glad he signed it. I was starting to wonder if it had gotten lost in the shuffle. At any rate, this was 10 years overdue.

And some people will be satisfied with it for about, oh, 10 minutes ...

Been satisfied with it for 24 hours so far... I'll let you know when I think it should be higher.