Virginia

[cpzilliacus]

CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION

A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

Really? Is there a massive need for yet another interchange in Virginia Beach? Meanwhile, improving an unsafe intersection (there is at least one wreck per week) in Montgomery County was flatly turned down in favor of a bandaid "R cut" that only moves the problem to different locations on U.S. 460. The residents of Blacksburg who have been fighting this problem for years will be so happy to know that Virginia Beach is being taken care of so well. Merry Christmas and screw you Southwest Virginia.

To answer your question, yes, I think a rebuilt interchange on VA-44 I-264 at Witchduck Road (great name) is needed.  Note that VDOT is not proposing a new interchange, but  a reconstruction of an old one.

Nor am I discounting the need for work in Southwest Virginia, even in relatively prosperous Montgomery  County, Virginia.  I have heard similar complaints from residents of Northern Virginia, who similarly assert that the Commonwealth tries to ignore their needs.

[froggie]

The crash rate for the existing ramp configuration at 264/Witchduck is fairly significant, especially eastbound.  It should also be noted that this is effectively "Phase 2" of a larger project that is revising the access from 64 "West" (i.e. from Chesapeake) to 264 East.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Not sure I'd call the Witchduck Road (VA 190) interchange on I-264 a "new" interchange as there's already an interchange there, although it's a really weird half-diamond, half-parclo interchange that has some major capacity issues. I'm guessing this is a project to rebuild the interchange into something with better traffic capacity.

[Mapmikey]

CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION

A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

Really? Is there a massive need for yet another interchange in Virginia Beach? Meanwhile, improving an unsafe intersection (there is at least one wreck per week) in Montgomery County was flatly turned down in favor of a bandaid "R cut" that only moves the problem to different locations on U.S. 460. The residents of Blacksburg who have been fighting this problem for years will be so happy to know that Virginia Beach is being taken care of so well. Merry Christmas and screw you Southwest Virginia.

Bruce in Blacksburg

They worded it poorly.  It is an existing interchange whose configuration dates to the opening of the VA 44 toll road.  They are extending the C/D system from I-64 and Newtown Rd and reconfiguring the Witchduck Rd intechange to accommodate that project is what this is for.

These 3 interchanges were a mess back in 1991 when I lived over there.

I do support converting the intersection you are citing into some sort of interchange.  Wasn't there some push back from non-VDOT entities on that?

[Beltway]

CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION
A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

Really? Is there a massive need for yet another interchange in Virginia Beach? Meanwhile, improving an unsafe intersection (there is at least one wreck per week) in Montgomery County was flatly turned down in favor of a bandaid "R cut" that only moves the problem to different locations on U.S. 460. The residents of Blacksburg who have been fighting this problem for years will be so happy to know that Virginia Beach is being taken care of so well. Merry Christmas and screw you Southwest Virginia.
Bruce in Blacksburg

They worded it poorly.  It is an existing interchange whose configuration dates to the opening of the VA 44 toll road.  They are extending the C/D system from I-64 and Newtown Rd and reconfiguring the Witchduck Rd intechange to accommodate that project is what this is for.
These 3 interchanges were a mess back in 1991 when I lived over there.
I do support converting the intersection you are citing into some sort of interchange.  Wasn't there some push back from non-VDOT entities on that?

New interchange in the sense that it will replace the existing interchange with a higher capacity interchange.  Mike's description is accurate, it involves expansion to a segment of I-264 as well.

2016 VDOT traffic data --
192,000 AADT on I-264 west of Witchduck Road
29,000 AADT on VA-190 Witchduck Road at I-264

Very busy highways and very high priority.

Citizens who question the fairness of funding allocations statewide can and should address this matter to the CTB, in person, by postal mail, by e-mail. 

I attended the CTB meetings Tuesday and Wednesday, and in an "informal discussion" part of the meeting the Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the CTB, C. Aubrey Layne, specifically mentioned the issue of spending levels in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia getting some criticism from other parts of the state, and he defended it basically saying that it matches the high level of population and traffic in those areas.

[Hurricane Rex]

CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION
A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

Really? Is there a massive need for yet another interchange in Virginia Beach? Meanwhile, improving an unsafe intersection (there is at least one wreck per week) in Montgomery County was flatly turned down in favor of a bandaid "R cut" that only moves the problem to different locations on U.S. 460. The residents of Blacksburg who have been fighting this problem for years will be so happy to know that Virginia Beach is being taken care of so well. Merry Christmas and screw you Southwest Virginia.
Bruce in Blacksburg

They worded it poorly.  It is an existing interchange whose configuration dates to the opening of the VA 44 toll road.  They are extending the C/D system from I-64 and Newtown Rd and reconfiguring the Witchduck Rd intechange to accommodate that project is what this is for.
These 3 interchanges were a mess back in 1991 when I lived over there.
I do support converting the intersection you are citing into some sort of interchange.  Wasn't there some push back from non-VDOT entities on that?

New interchange in the sense that it will replace the existing interchange with a higher capacity interchange.  Mike's description is accurate, it involves expansion to a segment of I-264 as well.

2016 VDOT traffic data --
192,000 AADT on I-264 west of Witchduck Road
29,000 AADT on VA-190 Witchduck Road at I-264

Very busy highways and very high priority.

Citizens who question the fairness of funding allocations statewide can and should address this matter to the CTB, in person, by postal mail, by e-mail. 

I attended the CTB meetings Tuesday and Wednesday, and in an "informal discussion" part of the meeting the Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the CTB, C. Aubrey Layne, specifically mentioned the issue of spending levels in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia getting some criticism from other parts of the state, and be defended it basically saying that it matches the high level of population and traffic in those areas.

I don't know Virginia's financial situation but why don't you do both? It seems to be common sense to improve the high trafficked interchange and to fix a safety problem at another.

[WillWeaverRVA]

CTB to consider truncating VA 237 east to Glebe Rd.

Technically 2 blocks off US 50 is not included in this proposal.

See page 785 of the December agenda - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/action_agenda.pdf

The workshop and meeting in December also starts up the motion on Virginia's participation with the US 301 Nice Bridge replacement -  Virginia is being requested to expend $14.2M.

Looks like this is happening - the CTB approved the truncation of VA 237 back to VA 120 at its last meeting, effective July 1, 2018.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/reso/resolution_12_rt_237.pdf

[J N Winkler]

CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION

Contracts awarded for widening of eastbound I-66 Inside the Beltway and I-64 Segment III
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2017/ctb_awards_four_contracts121584.asp

Eastbound I-66 Inside the Beltway will be widened between the Dulles Connector Road and Fairfax Drive --
An $85.7 million contract was awarded to Lane Construction Corp. of Chantilly to add a through lane along approximately four miles of eastbound Interstate 66 between the Dulles Connector Road (Route 267) and Fairfax Drive (Route 237) in Fairfax and Arlington counties, in VDOT's Northern Virginia District.

I-64 will be widened to three lanes for more than eight miles in York County --
A $178.3 million contract was awarded to Shirley Contracting Co. LLC of Lorton for I-64 Capacity Improvements Segment III. The project will extend the three lane section of Interstate 64 for about 8.2 miles west of the I-64 Capacity Improvement Segment II endpoint in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

Not for the first time, I wish VDOT (and other state DOTs in general) would quote project key numbers in press releases of this kind that indicate milestone progression for marquee projects.  This makes it easier to pull up the signing plans.

For the three projects quoted above (the fourth is a paving maintenance contract in the Richmond district), here is the information:

Eastbound I-66 within Beltway--UPCs 108424, 110629--design-build

I-64 capacity improvements Segment III--UPCs 106689, 109790--design-build

I-264/Witchduck Road--UPC 17630--design-bid-build

As others have commented, the last-listed project involves the service interchanges on I-264 just east of the I-64 interchange at the Norfolk/Virginia Beach boundary.  Compared to what exists now, VDOT is adding a new ramp from Newtown Road to eastbound I-264, is connecting Greenwich Road (south of I-264) to Columbia Street (north of I-264) via a new bridge across I-264, and is converting the loop ramp from eastbound I-264 to Witchduck Road into a link ramp.

[Beltway]

Not for the first time, I wish VDOT (and other state DOTs in general) would quote project key numbers in press releases of this kind that indicate milestone progression for marquee projects.  This makes it easier to pull up the signing plans.
For the three projects quoted above (the fourth is a paving maintenance contract in the Richmond district), here is the information:
Eastbound I-66 within Beltway--UPCs 108424, 110629--design-build
I-64 capacity improvements Segment III--UPCs 106689, 109790--design-build
I-264/Witchduck Road--UPC 17630--design-bid-build

The CTB minutes from that day did mention the UPCs on the two that were not bid, and the bid numbers on the ones that were bid. 
See the second to last page --
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/draft_minutes_ctb_action_meeting_dec_2017.pdf

I was at the meeting so I knew by their discussion which projects they were referring to, and the award amounts.  The thing that is irritating is that the CTB minutes do not give the project descriptions or the award amounts!

The meeting minutes were posted on the same day.  I wanted to post the award announcements in online groups, but I had to wait until the next day when VDOT posted the news release (and why not on the same day given such high-profile projects?).

[VTGoose]

They worded it poorly.  It is an existing interchange whose configuration dates to the opening of the VA 44 toll road.

I do support converting the intersection you are citing into some sort of interchange.  Wasn't there some push back from non-VDOT entities on that?

Citizens who question the fairness of funding allocations statewide can and should address this matter to the CTB, in person, by postal mail, by e-mail. 

I attended the CTB meetings Tuesday and Wednesday, and in an "informal discussion" part of the meeting the Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the CTB, C. Aubrey Layne, specifically mentioned the issue of spending levels in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia getting some criticism from other parts of the state, and he defended it basically saying that it matches the high level of population and traffic in those areas.

It was VDOT that pushed back against solutions other than the "R cut" to fix that intersection. The CTB reps and others were contacted by citizens who were pushing for a better solution than just moving the location of future accidents -- the Salem District rep couldn't be bothered to respond, let alone visit the area or meet with the citizens.

Bruce in Blacksburg

[Beltway]

Citizens who question the fairness of funding allocations statewide can and should address this matter to the CTB, in person, by postal mail, by e-mail. 
I attended the CTB meetings Tuesday and Wednesday, and in an "informal discussion" part of the meeting the Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the CTB, C. Aubrey Layne, specifically mentioned the issue of spending levels in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia getting some criticism from other parts of the state, and he defended it basically saying that it matches the high level of population and traffic in those areas.

It was VDOT that pushed back against solutions other than the "R cut" to fix that intersection. The CTB reps and others were contacted by citizens who were pushing for a better solution than just moving the location of future accidents -- the Salem District rep couldn't be bothered to respond, let alone visit the area or meet with the citizens.
Bruce in Blacksburg

Then the local citizens have worked with the process as fully as can be expected, and usually the district office is the one who should assign employees to work on a task such as this.

Is this the intersection at the northern end of the US-460 Blacksburg Bypass?  I recall previous discussions here where it was questioned as to whether the traffic volumes warranted a grade separation.  My opinion is that unless the traffic volumes are low by rural arterial norms that the bypass terminus intersections should be grade separated interchanges.

Here is one where the bypass terminus was built with an at-grade intersection, and where an interchange was built about 15 years later --
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7007208,-77.0993574,1074m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Jmiles32]

https://potomaclocal.com/2017/12/06/here-comes-a-wider-six-lane-fairfax-county-parkway/

A portion of the congested Fairfax County Parkway, which was once planned as an outer beltway for Washington, D.C., will be widened to six lanes.

The Virginia Department of Transportation plans to widen about five miles of the parkway between Routes 123 and 29. Additionally, an interchange will be added at Popes Head Road, where today a signal light causes major backups during the morning and afternoon commutes.

A public information session hearing on the $191 million project is scheduled from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 7, 2017, at the Northern Virginia Department of Transportation Northern Virginia Headquarters at 4975 Alliance Drive in Fairfax.

There you can learn about the project that is expected to open in late 2023

Anyone know if there is an interchange planned to replace the traffic light at Burke Centre Parkway? Apparently:

When the project is complete, "you'll be able to go all the way from Route 123 to Route 50 without a traffic stop,"  added Herrity.

yet both this article and the project's page on VDOT's website fail to mention anything about the intersection. However, I do see a TBD Phase 2 mentioned on VDOT's website so perhaps in that project the final traffic light between VA-123 and US-50 will be addressed.

[kendancy66]

^^ Ours (Vermont) are in the upper middle of the windshield...usually (depending on the vehicle) just under the rear view mirror such that said mirror partially blocks seeing the sticker from the driver's point of view.

IIRC New Hampshire does that also

SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

[hbelkins]

I know there are several who disagree with me, but a traffic light at the northern end of Business US 460 in Blacksburg, with ample "Prepare To Stop When Flashing" signage/beacons, would fix the problem.

[oscar]

^^ Ours (Vermont) are in the upper middle of the windshield...usually (depending on the vehicle) just under the rear view mirror such that said mirror partially blocks seeing the sticker from the driver's point of view.

IIRC New Hampshire does that also.

Much as I like that, that'd be a problem in Virginia, since it's awkward for inspection stations to place stickers behind the mirror. Also, in the local jurisdictions that require a sticker to certify payment of personal property tax (Fairfax County is a big and welcome exception), that sticker usually goes right next to the state inspection sticker. That, combined with people like me who like to mount their E-ZPass transponders behind the mirror, would make behind-the-mirror space rather crowded.

But I can see people not liking the old, and now new, policy of putting the state inspection sticker (plus the local sticker) on the lower driver's side corner of the windshield, where it will distract drivers. Why not the lower passenger side corner?

[froggie]

https://potomaclocal.com/2017/12/06/here-comes-a-wider-six-lane-fairfax-county-parkway/

A portion of the congested Fairfax County Parkway, which was once planned as an outer beltway for Washington, D.C., will be widened to six lanes.

The Virginia Department of Transportation plans to widen about five miles of the parkway between Routes 123 and 29. Additionally, an interchange will be added at Popes Head Road, where today a signal light causes major backups during the morning and afternoon commutes.

A public information session hearing on the $191 million project is scheduled from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 7, 2017, at the Northern Virginia Department of Transportation Northern Virginia Headquarters at 4975 Alliance Drive in Fairfax.

There you can learn about the project that is expected to open in late 2023

Anyone know if there is an interchange planned to replace the traffic light at Burke Centre Parkway? Apparently:

When the project is complete, "you'll be able to go all the way from Route 123 to Route 50 without a traffic stop,"  added Herrity.

yet both this article and the project's page on VDOT's website fail to mention anything about the intersection. However, I do see a TBD Phase 2 mentioned on VDOT's website so perhaps in that project the final traffic light between VA-123 and US-50 will be addressed.

Herrity is partially in error.  The design options as displayed at this past week's public meeting show no interchange at Burke Centre Pkwy, but instead have a couple of intersection options that would eliminate the southbound traffic signal but keep one northbound.

The freeway section along Fairfax County Pkwy would effectively be extended south to Ladues End Ln/Nomes Ct by this project.  That intersection would remain, but would be converted into either RIRO on each side or an RCUT/J-turn.

IIRC New Hampshire does that also

Yes they do.

I know there are several who disagree with me, but a traffic light at the northern end of Business US 460 in Blacksburg, with ample "Prepare To Stop When Flashing" signage/beacons, would fix the problem.

It wouldn't, for two reasons.  First, new signals have a tendency to increase rear-end crashes.  Second, there would be the problem of "driver expectation".  Eastbound, the signal is just after coming off a long downhill grade, while westbound is coming off a freeway-grade section that begins at I-81.

Much as I like that, that'd be a problem in Virginia, since it's awkward for inspection stations to place stickers behind the mirror.

It may be awkward, but if Vermont inspection stations can do it, I don't see why other states couldn't if they choose to move placement there.  You have a stronger argument for those jurisdictions where the car tax sticker gets placed next to the inspection sticker...having been active duty when I lived in Virginia, I fortunately never had to deal with that as I was exempt from the car tax.  And Virginia Beach and Norfolk (the other places I lived) did away with the sticker as well.

Below is how it's done in Vermont...placed just below the rear view mirror (for the most part...I've seen it placed elsewhere in some cars that have the rear view mirror anchored lower on the windshield.  Fits quite nicely and, as with the EZPass placement, minimizes driver distraction because it's behind the rear view for the most part.

[MNHighwayMan]

It may be awkward, but if Vermont inspection stations can do it, I don't see why other states couldn't if they choose to move placement there.

Or you could just have a state that doesn't do inspections.

[J N Winkler]

Below is how it's done in Vermont...placed just below the rear view mirror (for the most part...I've seen it placed elsewhere in some cars that have the rear view mirror anchored lower on the windshield.  Fits quite nicely and, as with the E-ZPass placement, minimizes driver distraction because it's behind the rear view for the most part.

I don't see driver distraction as an issue so much as waste of area behind the inside rearview mirror, which is essentially the only place to mount a toll transponder where it is certain to be read and is not in driver's line of sight to anything.  The behind-the-mirror area guarantees space only for two windshield-mounted objects of typical sticker/toll transponder size and if one of those two spaces is taken up by a sticker, then there is no room for a second transponder.  This is less of a problem for someone living in Vermont, where the shortest inside-the-US driving distance to an area where electronic tolling is not interoperable with E-ZPass is 850 miles, than it is for someone living in Virginia, where this minimum distance is about 300 miles.

Stickers are technologically obsolescent in any case.  States have been getting rid of them in favor of online lookup and even the Department of Defense is phasing out DD 2220.  But if stickers must be mounted on the windshield, then it is preferable that they be as low as possible to maximize the chances that the only thing they block driver's line of sight to is the hood.

[1995hoo]

The other thing about the area behind (or I guess in front of) the mirror is that some cars have various electronics there. My wife's TLX has two cameras there, I believe, related to lane-keeping assist and adaptive cruise control (I think....I'd have to look at the manual to confirm). The sticker would wind up low enough on cars like that to be right in your line of sight.

I'm not a proponent of eliminating the inspection. It's a minor hassle, sure, but we all know there are people who don't maintain their cars properly and will try to drive utterly unsafe junkers if given the chance. In Virginia you don't see many cars with missing bumpers, smashed-out lights, etc., because they fail inspection and you have to fix it.

[J N Winkler]

The other thing about the area behind (or I guess in front of) the mirror is that some cars have various electronics there. My wife's TLX has two cameras there, I believe, related to lane-keeping assist and adaptive cruise control (I think....I'd have to look at the manual to confirm). The sticker would wind up low enough on cars like that to be right in your line of sight.

Aren't there trim pieces around these cameras to prevent objects from being put between them and the windshield?

I'm not a proponent of eliminating the inspection. It's a minor hassle, sure, but we all know there are people who don't maintain their cars properly and will try to drive utterly unsafe junkers if given the chance.  In Virginia you don't see many cars with missing bumpers, smashed-out lights, etc., because they fail inspection and you have to fix it.

I have mixed feelings about vehicle inspection in general.  I like the idea of getting rid of vehicles that have damaged or missing safety equipment, that lack catalytic converters, or that have been illegally converted to "roll coal."  But in states that have emissions inspections, "clean and ready" OBD II (system in full readiness, no pending DTCs) is typically a minimum requirement, and that often leads to owners of otherwise roadworthy older cars chasing problems with rear oxygen sensors (highly likely to fail and hard to diagnose) just to get past inspection.  There is also potential for mission creep, with inspections being used for consumer-protection purposes unrelated to safety or emissions, such as preventing cars from being sold with leaky or nonfunctional A/C.

In any event, the sticker is an issue separate from the inspection regime, since in the absence of the former, enforcement can simply be carried out by license plate or VIN.

[1995hoo]

Aren't there trim pieces around these cameras to prevent objects from being put between them and the windshield?

Of course. My point was that said trim pieces would force the sticker to be placed lower on the windshield rather than behind/in front of the mirror.

[dfnva]

With this action, the CTB should have, additionally, (1) Truncated VA-237 to a western terminus at US-29 and I-66 and (2) Renumbered the only other remaining non-multiplexed portion of VA-237 (Pickett Rd in Fairfax).

I've always though VA-237 was an odd, if not, pointless, route, much of it is multiplexed with US-29 and it's posted sporadically, at best. 

CTB to consider truncating VA 237 east to Glebe Rd.

Technically 2 blocks off US 50 is not included in this proposal.

See page 785 of the December agenda - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/action_agenda.pdf

The workshop and meeting in December also starts up the motion on Virginia's participation with the US 301 Nice Bridge replacement -  Virginia is being requested to expend $14.2M.

Looks like this is happening - the CTB approved the truncation of VA 237 back to VA 120 at its last meeting, effective July 1, 2018.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/reso/resolution_12_rt_237.pdf

[Jmiles32]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/blacksburg/region-s-second-diverging-diamond-debuts-as-new-entrance-to/article_bffd4853-f5bb-5e86-9c3a-5be7c080e94a.html

Traffic will begin flowing Thursday at the newly constructed interchange situated between U.S. 460 and Southgate Drive in Blacksburg that will serve as a main entrance to Virginia Tech.

Part of the extensive project is a unique diverging diamond for traffic flow on the Tech campus (top). It's the second such design in Southwest Virginia after the Interstate 581-Valley View Drive interchange that opened in November 2016 in Roanoke.


The first vehicle that crossed the new U.S. 460 overpass during a ceremony on Wednesday was a driverless vehicle and the second was a local bus (above). The present Southgate Drive intersection and traffic light – a notorious traffic snarl – will no longer be used.

The Blacksburg project has been in the works for years and is designed to improve U.S. 460 traffic flow and safety, and expedite gameday traffic to and from Virginia Tech football games

This will now be the fourth DDI in Virginia with more on the way. I am really impressed by these interchanges as the one near my neck of the woods(I-66/US-15), seems to have definitely improved traffic flow in and around the Haymarket area. Regarding traffic flow in Blacksburg, now that this project has fixed the traffic light problem, I agree that an interchange at the northern end of the Blacksburg Bypass would be a very nice safety improvement for US-460, even if perhaps as of now traffic volumes don't necessarily warrant it.

Also something of interest: Governor-Elect Northam has named his transportation team
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/12/13/va-governor-elect-ralph-northam-names-his-transportation-team/?utm_term=.299724da5ce5

[1995hoo]

I'd like to go to this but can't due to work. If anyone here can go, will you give us a summary?

http://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/941036302438424576

[LM117]

Gov.-elect Ralph Northam has named Shannon Valentine as the new Secretary of Transportation and Stephen Birch as commissioner of VDOT.

http://shoredailynews.com/northam-names-new-sec-of-transportation/

Virginia Gov.-elect Ralph Northam has named a former House delegate and current member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board as his secretary of transportation.

Northam announced his choice of Shannon Valentine on Wednesday, saying he's committed to improving the state's thorny transportation issues.

Valentine represented the Lynchburg area in the state House from 2006 to 2010. She is from Lynchburg.

Transportation has been a key policy issue for several past governors, as some of the state's urban and suburban areas have some of the worst traffic in the country.

Northam also named Stephen Brich, an engineer from Hampton Roads, as commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Jennifer Mitchell, who is currently the director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, will stay on in that role.