Virginia

[VTGoose]

Should also have the ramp from I-81 NB pass under the ramp from 81 SB and merge in on the left so that future I-73 doesn't have a left merge.

The existing ramp from I-581 to I-81 southbound is already in a depression with the northbound lanes passing overhead (and also the I-81 southbound to I-581 exit ramp). The parallel southbound lanes would also cross the ramps on a bridge in these concepts, so the merge would be on the right.

As planned by VDOT, the contract just awarded will retain the left merge, but require southbound through drivers to move over a lane because the outside lane will change from through to "exit only" somewhere in the stretch between exits.

As to I-73  . There is no real utility to slapping signs on I-81 and I-77 (the only viable route to West Virginia) because they won't mean anything due to the big disconnect between Roanoke and North Carolina.

[Alps]

All discussion of speed limits has been merged into Speed Enforcement in Virginia

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: Va. Gov. Northam proposes gas tax increase as part of major transportation bill

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) is proposing a 4-cent increase in the state's gas tax to raise money to jump-start his $3.7-billion landmark rail plan and shore up a fund used to pay for roads, transit and rail projects.

The gas tax increase, which is expected to yield around $1 billion over the next four years, is included as part of a broad transportation bill Northam announced Monday. The proposal was endorsed by two Democratic leaders in the General Assembly, boosting its prospects in the body that flipped blue in November.

[Thing 342]

Buried in the article: The legislation (as written) also includes a number of "safety" improvements, most notably of which is the introduction of speed cameras on certain "Highway Safety" corridors: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1414

The bill adopts several safety initiatives, including: (i) making it illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, (ii) requiring all passengers in a vehicle to wear safety belts and making failure to wear a safety belt a primary offense, (iii) prohibiting the use of handheld personal communication devices, (iv) establishing a speed monitoring program in highway safety corridors that uses a vehicle sensor to take a picture of a vehicle traveling more than 10 miles over the speed limit, subjecting the driver to a monetary fine, and (v) allowing localities to lower the speed limit below 25 miles per hour in business and residential districts.  The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles will establish an advisory committee to oversee education and enforcement of policies such as the seatbelt and hands-free provisions.

[sprjus4]

Buried in the article: The legislation (as written) also includes a number of "safety" improvements, most notably of which is the introduction of speed cameras on certain "Highway Safety" corridors: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1414

The bill adopts several safety initiatives, including: (i) making it illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, (ii) requiring all passengers in a vehicle to wear safety belts and making failure to wear a safety belt a primary offense, (iii) prohibiting the use of handheld personal communication devices, (iv) establishing a speed monitoring program in highway safety corridors that uses a vehicle sensor to take a picture of a vehicle traveling more than 10 miles over the speed limit, subjecting the driver to a monetary fine, and (v) allowing localities to lower the speed limit below 25 miles per hour in business and residential districts.  The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles will establish an advisory committee to oversee education and enforcement of policies such as the seatbelt and hands-free provisions.

Should be at least 15 mph over if anything, though really it shouldn't be a thing at all. This is the direction Virginia is turning now with blue control from Northern Virginia, and the other urban areas.

[Beltway]

The bill adopts several safety initiatives, including: (i) making it illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, (ii) requiring all passengers in a vehicle to wear safety belts and making failure to wear a safety belt a primary offense, (iii) prohibiting the use of handheld personal communication devices, (iv) establishing a speed monitoring program in highway safety corridors that uses a vehicle sensor to take a picture of a vehicle traveling more than 10 miles over the speed limit, subjecting the driver to a monetary fine, and (v) allowing localities to lower the speed limit below 25 miles per hour in business and residential districts.  The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles will establish an advisory committee to oversee education and enforcement of policies such as the seatbelt and hands-free provisions.

Should be at least 15 mph over if anything, though really it shouldn't be a thing at all. This is the direction Virginia is turning now with blue control from Northern Virginia, and the other urban areas.

Yes indeed ... look at who is introducing that nonsense in the GA.

I don't support any type of camera traffic enforcement, because it targets the vehicle and not the driver.  While they are often one and the same, there are plenty of times when the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, so it should be illegal to ticket the owner and not the driver.

These enforcement cameras are -expensive- as well, I have heard figures in the $0.5 to $1.5 million dollar range, sometimes needing to be fully replaced every 2 years, as the kind of precision and accuracy needed from a technological standpoint makes them so expensive that they don't even generate the amount of "revenue" that some of the detractors claim.

[sprjus4]

Yes indeed ... look at who is introducing that nonsense in the GA.

I don't support any type of camera traffic enforcement, because it targets the vehicle and not the driver.  While they are often one and the same, there are plenty of times when the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, so it should be illegal to ticket the owner and not the driver.

While I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the introduction of traffic cameras, isn't it the concept with toll by plate and red light cameras? Not that I agree with red light cameras either - those have been proven to increase accidents rather than reduce them.

These enforcement cameras are -expensive- as well, I have heard figures in the $0.5 to $1.5 million dollar range, sometimes needing to be fully replaced every 2 years, as the kind of precision and accuracy needed from a technological standpoint makes them so expensive that they don't even generate the amount of "revenue" that some of the detractors claim.

Not to mention, it's our tax dollars funding this nonsense. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but it's still something that could be used elsewhere. I guess the tax increase will fund this program.

It won't stop here. First it was work zones, now it's going to "safety corridors" , next it'll be something like all urban highways, then eventually all highways if it gets that far.

[Beltway]

I don't support any type of camera traffic enforcement, because it targets the vehicle and not the driver.  While they are often one and the same, there are plenty of times when the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, so it should be illegal to ticket the owner and not the driver.

While I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the introduction of traffic cameras, isn't it the concept with toll by plate and red light cameras? Not that I agree with red light cameras either - those have been proven to increase accidents rather than reduce them.

I wrote "any type of camera traffic enforcement" because I wanted to include things like red light enforcement.  Same issue, it tickets the owner of the vehicle with may or may not be the driver.

Toll by plate is not law enforcement, and it usually deals with only small sums of money, so I am not opposed to that.  Tolling the vehicle itself is IMO acceptable.

Not to mention, it's our tax dollars funding this nonsense. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but it's still something that could be used elsewhere. I guess the tax increase will fund this program.
It won't stop here. First it was work zones, now it's going to "safety corridors" , next it'll be something like all urban highways, then eventually all highways if it gets that far.
All after only 3 months in.

3 months???  How about 2 weeks since they assumed offices?  And they are ramming every possible dream of theirs through as quickly as possible, even though for at least 26 years the electorate voted against that, and one election doesn't say that they are in favor of those things such as automatic camera-based law enforcement.

[hbelkins]

Buried in the article: The legislation (as written) also includes a number of "safety" improvements, most notably of which is the introduction of speed cameras on certain "Highway Safety" corridors: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1414

The bill adopts several safety initiatives, including: (i) making it illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, (ii) requiring all passengers in a vehicle to wear safety belts and making failure to wear a safety belt a primary offense, (iii) prohibiting the use of handheld personal communication devices, (iv) establishing a speed monitoring program in highway safety corridors that uses a vehicle sensor to take a picture of a vehicle traveling more than 10 miles over the speed limit, subjecting the driver to a monetary fine, and (v) allowing localities to lower the speed limit below 25 miles per hour in business and residential districts.  The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles will establish an advisory committee to oversee education and enforcement of policies such as the seatbelt and hands-free provisions.

How do you determine who the driver is? Facial recognition software?

[Beltway]

How do you determine who the driver is? Facial recognition software?

Don't laugh ... some have reported that as many as half of the population have been recorded on a database by that method!

Next time you are at a political rally the government may have a record of your being there!   

[cl94]

To be fair, the federal government has used facial recognition technology forever, as have most developed foreign countries. If you have ever done anything for the feds, chances are your face is in their system. I...don't really worry about it.

Re: the referenced bill, they will probably just fine the vehicle owner. No current system is advanced enough to easily determine the driver.

[sprjus4]

Re: the referenced bill, they will probably just fine the vehicle owner. No current system is advanced enough to easily determine the driver.

Exactly, and is a major flaw in the plan.

Not to mention, merely doing 65 mph on I-95 in the Richmond area, which is quite easy on the straightaway south of the city and a lot of traffic already does, would get you a high fine automatically.

Merely doing 75 mph along I-81 between Roanoke and Christiansburg, notably the wide 3-lane segment southbound, which is quite easy and a lot of traffic already does, would get you a high fine automatically.

If they're going to do speed limit cameras at all, which I disagree 100% with them, it should be 15 mph over, not 10 mph. Doing 10 mph over on an interstate highway is not fairly uncommon, 15 mph is less common and a good place to ticket. But that money though....

[Beltway]

Not to mention, merely doing 65 mph on I-95 in the Richmond area, which is quite easy on the straightaway south of the city and a lot of traffic already does, would get you a high fine automatically.

Not automatic ... I pass thru the I-495 construction zones in P.G. County MD, that have photo speed enforcement, and news articles say that while they could technologically ticket at 56 mph, they allow 12 mph more than that.

The court systems would loudly object if they start having to deal with thousands of cases that are not important to them.

[sprjus4]

Not to mention, merely doing 65 mph on I-95 in the Richmond area, which is quite easy on the straightaway south of the city and a lot of traffic already does, would get you a high fine automatically.

Not automatic ... I pass thru the I-495 construction zones in P.G. County MD, that have photo speed enforcement, and news articles say that while they could technologically ticket at 56 mph, they allow 12 mph more than that.

I-95 south of the Downtown Richmond area is a Highway Safety Corridor posted at only 55 mph, and since the photo speed enforcement proposed in Virginia will ticket at 10 mph or faster, it would be 65 mph on that stretch.

[Beltway]

Not automatic ... I pass thru the I-495 construction zones in P.G. County MD, that have photo speed enforcement, and news articles say that while they could technologically ticket at 56 mph, they allow 12 mph more than that.

I-95 south of the Downtown Richmond area is a Highway Safety Corridor posted at only 55 mph, and since the photo speed enforcement proposed in Virginia will ticket at 10 mph or faster, it would be 65 mph on that stretch.

Is it still a corridor?  It has been a couple years at least since I recall seeing the HSC signs.

The speed limit becomes 60 just south of Maury Street, about 1 mile south of the river, or about 1.5 mile south of the downtown.

[sprjus4]

Is it still a corridor?  It has been a couple years at least since I recall seeing the HSC signs.

According to May 2019 imagery it still is.

I recall signage as well driving through there a few months ago.

[NJRoadfan]

I-95 Exit 69 all the way up to Exit 83 is a Safety Corridor along with Exit 150 to just north of Exit 158

[Mapmikey]

I-95 Interim Corridor Improvement Plan has been released.

Has stuff in it like metering a bunch of ramps in NoVA; variable speed limits from south of Richmond to Fredericksburg; shoulder lanes from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge that would open in the opposite direction of HOT lanes; various interchange improvements coming and being studied.

Says they should study making the HOT lanes bi-directional.

Other than a few transition lane additions no actual widening of I-95 other than between Exit 126 and 130 that I noticed.

[sprjus4]

shoulder lanes from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge that would open in the opposite direction of HOT lanes; various interchange improvements coming and being studied.

Says they should study making the HOT lanes bi-directional.

The shoulder lanes would be the bi-directional HO/T lane. When Transurban's lanes are opened one way, VDOT's shoulder HO/T lane would be opened the other way.

Other than a few transition lane additions no actual widening of I-95 other than between Exit 126 and 130 that I noticed.

Go figure. I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040 and traffic will only get far worse than it is today.

[Beltway]

Is it still a corridor?  It has been a couple years at least since I recall seeing the HSC signs.

According to May 2019 imagery it still is.
I recall signage as well driving through there a few months ago.

The limit increases to 60 about 1/2 mile south of there (just measured it).

According to the VDOT website that HSC runs from Bells Road to Parham Avenue.

Much of the highway between the river and Chamberlayne Avenue Exit 62 has too much horizontal curvature to handle more than 55 or 60.

[Beltway]

The shoulder lanes would be the bi-directional HO/T lane. When Transurban's lanes are opened one way, VDOT's shoulder HO/T lane would be opened the other way.

Poor design, using a shoulder for a traffic lane; hopefully is it not the right shoulder.

Other than a few transition lane additions no actual widening of I-95 other than between Exit 126 and 130 that I noticed.

Go figure. I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040 and traffic will only get far worse than it is today.

I-95 Interim Corridor Improvement Plan ???

So how far of a time horizon is "interim?" 

Seems the focus is on the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program between Richmond and downtown D.C., that is where most of the money is going.

[sprjus4]

Poor design, using a shoulder for a traffic lane; hopefully is it not the right shoulder.

It would be the left shoulder. The I-64 Express Lanes network in Hampton Roads will utilize the shoulder adjacent to the reversible lanes as bi-directional between I-564 and I-264. The left shoulder will also be utilized on the HRBT corridor to provide 2+2 during peak hours, and 1+2 during off-peak each way, though quite frankly I say eliminate the left shoulder all together and provide 2 HO/T lanes each way full time. For HO/T lanes, it's quite often done like this across the country, providing minimal left shoulder, even with only 1 lane each way. It would be that way during peak hours, why not just make it full time?

I-95 Interim Corridor Improvement Plan ???

So how far of a time horizon is "interim?" 

Seems the focus is on the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program between Richmond and downtown D.C., that is where most of the money is going.

I'm still convinced at this rate I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040, and no bypass would have been constructed.

That railroad upgrade program is being funded by the gas tax increase interestingly enough. Not a road expansion, but a rail expansion. Ridiculous.

Like I said, I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040. It needed 8-lanes 20 years ago and a bypass, and it will continue to need 8-lanes and a bypass in another 20 years.

[Beltway]

Poor design, using a shoulder for a traffic lane; hopefully is it not the right shoulder.

It would be the left shoulder. The I-64 Express Lanes network in Hampton Roads will utilize the shoulder adjacent to the reversible lanes as bi-directional between I-564 and I-264. The left shoulder will also be utilized on the HRBT corridor to provide 2+2 during peak hours, and 1+2 during off-peak each way, though quite frankly I say eliminate the left shoulder all together and provide 2 HO/T lanes each way full time. For HO/T lanes, it's quite often done like this across the country, providing minimal left shoulder, even with only 1 lane each way. It would be that way during peak hours, why not just make it full time?

Because the left shoulder is needed on a 3+ lane roadway. 

In any event, a 10-foot shoulder with 30% to 50% of the pavement thickness (I would have to research the original plans to know the exact figure) needs extensive upgrading to provide a 12-foot traffic lane.

Seems the focus is on the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program between Richmond and downtown D.C., that is where most of the money is going.

I'm still convinced at this rate I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040, and no bypass would have been constructed.

I don't have ESP, and I am not a prophet, so I can't predict something like that, that far into the future.

The $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program will have a huge impact during peak hours, so it is not something to dismiss; and if they are willing to spend that kind of money, then by 2025 (the implied "interim" date) they could plan some major highway improvements.

However, with the C-D project between VA-3 and US-17, and the reversibles extension under construction, and these shoulders lanes, that would provide (in however they define peak hours) at least 5 lanes in one direction and 4 lanes the other direction all the way north (aside: this governor has at least partly spoiled the word "north" for me), from VA-3 to I-495.
 

[Mapmikey]

shoulder lanes from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge that would open in the opposite direction of HOT lanes; various interchange improvements coming and being studied.

Says they should study making the HOT lanes bi-directional.

The shoulder lanes would be the bi-directional HO/T lane. When Transurban's lanes are opened one way, VDOT's shoulder HO/T lane would be opened the other way.

That is separate and in Appendix A.

Look at Table 3 in Appendix B (pg. 54).  i misspoke - it is to Springfield, not Woodbridge for making the HOT lanes run both directions.  It also says to study managed lanes on the Beltway from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge.

It occurs to me that allowing HOT lanes to be expanded to both ways could be a bargaining chip to allow a 4th general lane in each direction...

[Beltway]

Look at Table 3 in Appendix B (pg. 54).  i misspoke - it is to Springfield, not Woodbridge for making the HOT lanes run both directions.  It also says to study managed lanes on the Beltway from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge.
It occurs to me that allowing HOT lanes to be expanded to both ways could be a bargaining chip to allow a 4th general lane in each direction...

For further study, as only conceptual ideas at this point.

This was discussed at the last CBT meeting, and the wording notwithstanding, they are not going to make the existing express roadway two-way, they would build a second express roadway, and each would have permanent one-direction use.

Table 3 EXPRESS LANES IMPROVEMENTS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Exit 130 to Exit 170 -- Convert existing Express Lanes to bi-directional operations
Exit 170 to Maryland Border -- Construct managed lanes from Exit 170 across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge into Maryland

I would like to see how they are going to upgrade the Springfield Interchange to tie all this in to I-495 and to transition the pair of I-95 express roadways into the reversible I-395 roadway.