WTOP Radio: Tolls, drones among key proposals for I-81 traffic fixes (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/07/tolls-drones-among-key-proposals-for-i-81-traffic-fixes/)
QuoteDrones floating above the interstate could be as integral as new tolling or gas taxes are to significant changes planned to deal with Interstate 81 backups that can leave drivers sitting at a standstill for hours.
QuoteUnlike other interstates in Virginia, delays on the approximately 325 miles of I-81 are most often due to crashes or other incidents that block lanes. In other parts of the state, delays are usually more predictable due to congestion from rush-hour or other traffic.
QuoteThe difference is expected to lead to some unique possible solutions to the mileslong backups on I-81 that can last eight hours or longer following a serious crash with an overturned tractor-trailer. The General Assembly has directed Virginia's Commonwealth Transportation Board to report back with proposals by early January.
List of current Virginia Department of Transportation projects in the I-81 Corridor can be found here (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/corridors/interstate_81_projects.asp).
I wonder if anything will actually be done to the Interstate 81 corridor in Virginia, or if the can will again be kicked down the road. Maybe they should have gone forward with the truck lanes proposal.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 28, 2018, 03:47:43 PM
I wonder if anything will actually be done to the Interstate 81 corridor in Virginia, or if the can will again be kicked down the road. Maybe they should have gone forward with the truck lanes proposal.
Fluor Virginia was a consortium at the same time that tendered a proposal for conventional widening of the whole 325 miles to at least 6 lanes (3 each way). That and the STAR Solutions proposal were returned (IOW canceled) by the state.
They would have been supported by tolling the highway which was authorized as a TEA-21 pilot project.
Fluor Virginia Inc. said in 2003 that it could add two car-only lanes in the median of I-81 for $1.8 billion by 2011 and pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks.
Couldn't resist linking this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L5QrfKxUXw
ixnay
^^^That was on time, ixnay!
I may have heard this as a wee lad...
The 81 mentioned in the song...what the hell is it, anyway? Nonetheless, that was a cool reference indeed!
Quote from: Henry on July 30, 2018, 09:35:40 AM
The 81 mentioned in the song...what the hell is it, anyway? Nonetheless, that was a cool reference indeed!
It's a dance style; back in the 50's through the early 80's they would name new dances (for example, the "Funky Chicken" or the "Mashed Potatoes").
Quote from: ixnay on July 29, 2018, 09:03:46 AM
Couldn't resist linking this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L5QrfKxUXw
ixnay
Nice! Thanks for sharing this.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 28, 2018, 03:47:43 PM
I wonder if anything will actually be done to the Interstate 81 corridor in Virginia, or if the can will again be kicked down the road. Maybe they should have gone forward with the truck lanes proposal.
I see four possible paths to follow:
(1) Do nothing except maintenance (such as bridge repairs to include deck replacements) and paving, and maybe a few "spot" widenings - as allowed by existing funding sources.
(2) Impose tolls on all traffic using I-81 in Virginia, perhaps with cashless toll collection collection from gantries between interchanges in the style of MD-200 and NC-540. This corridor might benefit from time-of-day tolling for cars and a
separate time-of-day tolling schedule for commercial vehicles.
(3) Raise motor fuel taxes enough across all of Virginia to fund widening so the I-81 corridor is at least 6 or 8 lanes for all 320+ miles of freeway.
(4) An alternative could make the fuel tax higher only in counties or cities through which I-81 runs (including jurisdictions that are close to, but not on I-81), but that would mean a steeper increase if it was only on I-81 corridor jurisdictions.
I seem to recall one of the sticking points on the Star and Fluor proposals being the companies' desire for a noncompete clause that the AG's office advised could have been construed to prohibit improvements to US-29 and possibly I-85. The US-29 one was of particular concern back then because of the improvements around Lynchburg (which were sorely needed, of course, and ideally would have extended further south). I don't really remember other details at this point, but I seem to recall media reports about the overall issue being along those lines.
Quote from: cpzilliacus(3) Raise motor fuel taxes enough across all of Virginia to fund widening so the I-81 corridor is at least 6 or 8 lanes for all 320+ miles of freeway.
(4) An alternative could make the fuel tax higher only in counties or cities through which I-81 runs (including jurisdictions that are close to, but not on I-81), but that would mean a steeper increase if it was only on I-81 corridor jurisdictions.
It depends on where the additional gas tax revenue would be targeted. I doubt the former (a statewide increase) would be targeted just to I-81...not with the massive needs elsewhere in the state where the tax would be collected. It would be less politically difficult to target the latter just to I-81...and I'd hazard a bet that such an increase would be less than what a statewide increase would need to be to get 81 on the docket.
Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus(3) Raise motor fuel taxes enough across all of Virginia to fund widening so the I-81 corridor is at least 6 or 8 lanes for all 320+ miles of freeway.
(4) An alternative could make the fuel tax higher only in counties or cities through which I-81 runs (including jurisdictions that are close to, but not on I-81), but that would mean a steeper increase if it was only on I-81 corridor jurisdictions.
It depends on where the additional gas tax revenue would be targeted. I doubt the former (a statewide increase) would be targeted just to I-81...not with the massive needs elsewhere in the state where the tax would be collected. It would be less politically difficult to target the latter just to I-81...and I'd hazard a bet that such an increase would be less than what a statewide increase would need to be to get 81 on the docket.
I agree regarding a statewide increase - especially when some parts of the Commonwealth (in particular Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) are already paying more from various sources. Were a new motor fuel tax increase across Virginia be proposed, it would have to have a listing of projects that have (or are are deemed reasonably certain to get) environmental approvals.
If it were limited to just the I-81 corridor counties and cities, I would presume that the increase would have to be
larger, since you have an expensive project that would be spread over fewer units of fuel sold. Or am I missing something?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2018, 02:51:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 28, 2018, 03:47:43 PM
I wonder if anything will actually be done to the Interstate 81 corridor in Virginia, or if the can will again be kicked down the road. Maybe they should have gone forward with the truck lanes proposal.
I see four possible paths to follow:
(1) Do nothing except maintenance (such as bridge repairs to include deck replacements) and paving, and maybe a few "spot" widenings - as allowed by existing funding sources.
(2) Impose tolls on all traffic using I-81 in Virginia, perhaps with cashless toll collection collection from gantries between interchanges in the style of MD-200 and NC-540. This corridor might benefit from time-of-day tolling for cars and a separate time-of-day tolling schedule for commercial vehicles.
(3) Raise motor fuel taxes enough across all of Virginia to fund widening so the I-81 corridor is at least 6 or 8 lanes for all 320+ miles of freeway.
(4) An alternative could make the fuel tax higher only in counties or cities through which I-81 runs (including jurisdictions that are close to, but not on I-81), but that would mean a steeper increase if it was only on I-81 corridor jurisdictions.
I fear that since the words "Higher Taxes" are perhaps the most hated on the planet, Path 1 or 2 are probably the most realistic.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2018, 03:19:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus(3) Raise motor fuel taxes enough across all of Virginia to fund widening so the I-81 corridor is at least 6 or 8 lanes for all 320+ miles of freeway.
(4) An alternative could make the fuel tax higher only in counties or cities through which I-81 runs (including jurisdictions that are close to, but not on I-81), but that would mean a steeper increase if it was only on I-81 corridor jurisdictions.
It depends on where the additional gas tax revenue would be targeted. I doubt the former (a statewide increase) would be targeted just to I-81...not with the massive needs elsewhere in the state where the tax would be collected. It would be less politically difficult to target the latter just to I-81...and I'd hazard a bet that such an increase would be less than what a statewide increase would need to be to get 81 on the docket.
I agree regarding a statewide increase - especially when some parts of the Commonwealth (in particular Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) are already paying more from various sources. Were a new motor fuel tax increase across Virginia be proposed, it would have to have a listing of projects that have (or are are deemed reasonably certain to get) environmental approvals.
If it were limited to just the I-81 corridor counties and cities, I would presume that the increase would have to be larger, since you have an expensive project that would be spread over fewer units of fuel sold. Or am I missing something?
i believe the theory is that a smaller regional fuel tax that was solely for I-81 would be more revenue than a larger statewide tax that would be divided among many projects...
For the tolls, I guess besides the older idea of toll truck lanes, maybe some gaps of I-81 could have some ETL(Express toll lanes) or HOT (High Occupency toll) lanes similar to the concepts used for I-495/Capital Beltway around Arlington and I-95 in Maryland.
I digged the archives of misc.transport.road and I founded that old post from 2004 about tolls on I-81.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.transport.road/XvlxtWmxBm4%5B1-25%5D
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 05, 2018, 07:15:11 PM
For the tolls, I guess besides the older idea of toll truck lanes, maybe some gaps of I-81 could have some ETL(Express toll lanes) or HOT (High Occupency toll) lanes similar to the concepts used for I-495/Capital Beltway around Arlington and I-95 in Maryland.
I digged the archives of misc.transport.road and I founded that old post from 2004 about tolls on I-81.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.transport.road/XvlxtWmxBm4%5B1-25%5D
I think the idea of truck-only toll lanes (and trucks prohibited on car lanes) is dead and is not coming back.
HOV/Toll lanes probably do not make sense here, because there are no large employment centers, little or no transit or other bus service (IIRC Megabus has one or two trips each day between Knoxville, Tennessee and Washington, D.C. with a stop in Christiansburg (a "suburb" of Blacksburg), and the Virginia Breeze bus service (http://catchthevabreeze.com/) is run by a sister company of Megabus between Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Lexington, Staunton, Harrisonburg, Front Royal, Dulles Airport, Arlington and Washington, D.C.) and those employment centers that do exist are spread-out up and down the I-81 corridor in Virginia.
If there is a desire to go with tolling, then I think the tolls should apply to all traffic using I-81, though if there are gantries between the interchanges (like MD-200), then perhaps the first 10 to 20 miles could be free of toll for drivers of cars with E-ZPass transponders. Note that I strongly suspect that elected officials in the corridor would not like this idea at all, though they might like it better if it was presented as this or do nothing.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2018, 08:26:43 PM
I think the idea of truck-only toll lanes (and trucks prohibited on car lanes) is dead and is not coming back.
HOV/Toll lanes probably do not make sense here, because there are no large employment centers, and those that do exist are spread-out up and down the I-81 corridor in Virginia.
If there is a desire to go with tolling, then I think the tolls should apply to all traffic using I-81, though if there are gantries between the interchanges (like MD-200), then perhaps the first 10 to 20 miles could be free of toll for drivers of cars with E-ZPass transponders. Note that I strongly suspect that elected officials in the corridor would not like this idea at all, though they might like it better if it was presented as this or do nothing.
The Tier I EIS / location study of 2004 did not support the separate truck lanes, for 2035 projections, a two-lane truck roadway each way would rarely if ever be warranted trafficwise, and a two-lane car roadway each way would not be adequate at high-volume times in the week. It didn't fit the current or future traffic patterns.
Better IMHO to have two conventional roadways, with three lanes each way for all traffic, with four lanes each way in certain high-volume sections.
As I have said before, the tolling of a long-distance toll-free Interstate doesn't seem to be feasible anywhere in the U.S., as none of the three TEA-21 pilot projects authorized in 1998 has been begun. MO I-70 was one that was approved by FHWA, and VA I-81 was approved and after that failed it was switched to VA I-95, and that one also went nowhere. I don't think the third one was ever taken.
^ It was taken. North Carolina took the third slot for I-95 (and we all know how that turned out).
But it has all been reset. Due to FAST Act changes, which gave a 3 year deadline from that time, the VA and NC slots were relinquished in late 2017 (I-70 MO still had interim approval at least through last year...do not know if that's still the case), and FHWA solicited requests over the winter. I do not know who submitted requests or their status.
Quote from: froggie on August 05, 2018, 09:23:21 PM
^ It was taken. North Carolina took the third slot for I-95 (and we all know how that turned out).
But it has all been reset. Due to FAST Act changes, which gave a 3 year deadline from that time, the VA and NC slots were relinquished in late 2017 (I-70 MO still had interim approval at least through last year...do not know if that's still the case), and FHWA solicited requests over the winter. I do not know who submitted requests or their status.
If Virginia had been serious about it they would not have let it go. Well, there was local opposition all along the corridor, and opposition from trucking industry lobbying groups, and opposition from motorist advocacy groups.
Fluor Virginia, Inc. had a proposal in 2003 to add one lane each way in the median for the whole of I-81, for $1.8 billion, to be completed by 2011, to be supported by tolls on all vehicle classes. The $5.5 million per mile average might have been doable back then. Imagine how nice it would be to have a 6-lane I-81 in Virginia now!
Quote from: Beltway on August 05, 2018, 08:38:27 PM
The Tier I EIS / location study of 2004 did not support the separate truck lanes, for 2035 projections, a two-lane truck roadway each way would rarely if ever be warranted trafficwise, and a two-lane car roadway each way would not be adequate at high-volume times in the week. It didn't fit the current or future traffic patterns.
Was that two lanes as in one lane each way for trucks or two lanes each way? I always assumed it was two lanes each way, as truck traffic volumes on most of I-81 makes one lane each way an ugly proposition, given the great variability between laden and unladen truck weights.
Quote from: Beltway on August 05, 2018, 08:38:27 PM
Better IMHO to have two conventional roadways, with three lanes each way for all traffic, with four lanes each way in certain high-volume sections.
Yes, I agree.
Quote from: Beltway on August 05, 2018, 08:38:27 PM
As I have said before, the tolling of a long-distance toll-free Interstate doesn't seem to be feasible anywhere in the U.S., as none of the three TEA-21 pilot projects authorized in 1998 has been begun. MO I-70 was one that was approved by FHWA, and VA I-81 was approved and after that failed it was switched to VA I-95, and that one also went nowhere. I don't think the third one was ever taken.
There are several Interstate corridors that could really use this, IMO (I have driven all of these):
- I-81 (ideally all the way from Bristol to the I-78 junction in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania (and yes, there are some six-lane sections now));
- I-78 between I-81 (near Lebanon) and end PennDOT maintenance and begin DRJTBC maintenance (signed TO PA-611 at Exit 75) [maybe Pennsylvania could figure out a way to collect even more Act 44/Act 89 transit subsidies from out-of-state drivers on I-78];
- I-95 across southern Connecticut (and especially between the New York State border and I-91 in New Haven);
- I-95 across South Carolina (starting at the end of the short six lane section outside Florence, SC-327, South Carolina Exit 170), all of North Carolina and into Virginia as far as I-295 just outside Petersburg (Virginia Exit 46); and
- I-70 across most of Missouri between MO-7 (Exit 20) at Blue Springs and Route Z (Exit 209) at Wentzville.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2018, 10:58:12 PM
- I-81 (ideally all the way from Bristol to the I-78 junction in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania (and yes, there are some six-lane sections now));
I'd even say 81 should be
eight lanes from Front Street in Harrisburg to I-78. The existing six-lane part of I-78 near Allentown should definitely be eight lanes if the rest is widened to six.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2018, 10:58:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 05, 2018, 08:38:27 PM
The Tier I EIS / location study of 2004 did not support the separate truck lanes, for 2035 projections, a two-lane truck roadway each way would rarely if ever be warranted trafficwise, and a two-lane car roadway each way would not be adequate at high-volume times in the week. It didn't fit the current or future traffic patterns.
Was that two lanes as in one lane each way for trucks or two lanes each way? I always assumed it was two lanes each way, as truck traffic volumes on most of I-81 makes one lane each way an ugly proposition, given the great variability between laden and unladen truck weights.
-- A two-lane truck roadway each way
-- A two-lane car roadway each way
That would be a dual-divided highway with 4 separate 2-lane roadways, a 2-2-2-2 lane configuration, that is what STAR Solutions proposed. Truck roadways on the inside and car roadways on the outside.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2018, 08:26:43 PM
If there is a desire to go with tolling, then I think the tolls should apply to all traffic using I-81, though if there are gantries between the interchanges (like MD-200), then perhaps the first 10 to 20 miles could be free of toll for drivers of cars with E-ZPass transponders. Note that I strongly suspect that elected officials in the corridor would not like this idea at all, though they might like it better if it was presented as this or do nothing.
If the whole road is tolled, then some type of "resident give-away" needs to be set up like West Virginia does with the WV Turnpike -- like a cost of almost zero for most trips. I don't know about Harrisonburg or Winchester (I'm thinking I-81 may be used as a bypass in those places to get from one side of the city to the other) but there is a lot of commuter traffic on I-81 between the Roanoke Valley and the New River Valley -- in both directions. If people who drive or carpool to work every day for free are presented with a "pay to drive" plan, it might get support but the multiple back-road routes will be choked with cars avoiding the toll road.
The "better" plan (for a small value of "better") would be to have a special taxing district overlaid on the I-81 corridor with an increase in the gas tax to provide revenue to improve the highway. The downside is that there are probably more people from all regions of Virginia who use and benefit from I-81 vs. the number of Virginians from across the state who use (and benefit from improvements to) roads in Northern Virginia and Tidewater. For example, there are more people from Northern Virginia who use I-81 to reach JMU, Virginia Tech, and Radford multiple times during a year vs. people from Southwest Virginia who travel to NOVA/Washington, D.C. maybe once a year if ever.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Quote from: Beltway on August 05, 2018, 11:21:00 PM
-- A two-lane truck roadway each way
-- A two-lane car roadway each way
That would be a dual-divided highway with 4 separate 2-lane roadways, a 2-2-2-2 lane configuration, that is what STAR Solutions proposed. Truck roadways on the inside and car roadways on the outside.
Thanks for the reminder. That configuration seems pretty reasonable, perhaps with climbing lanes in some places (IMO not that many). The car lanes would have been "free," right?
Quote from: VTGoose on August 06, 2018, 09:08:31 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2018, 08:26:43 PM
If there is a desire to go with tolling, then I think the tolls should apply to all traffic using I-81, though if there are gantries between the interchanges (like MD-200), then perhaps the first 10 to 20 miles could be free of toll for drivers of cars with E-ZPass transponders. Note that I strongly suspect that elected officials in the corridor would not like this idea at all, though they might like it better if it was presented as this or do nothing.
If the whole road is tolled, then some type of "resident give-away" needs to be set up like West Virginia does with the WV Turnpike -- like a cost of almost zero for most trips. I don't know about Harrisonburg or Winchester (I'm thinking I-81 may be used as a bypass in those places to get from one side of the city to the other) but there is a lot of commuter traffic on I-81 between the Roanoke Valley and the New River Valley -- in both directions. If people who drive or carpool to work every day for free are presented with a "pay to drive" plan, it might get support but the multiple back-road routes will be choked with cars avoiding the toll road.
The "better" plan (for a small value of "better") would be to have a special taxing district overlaid on the I-81 corridor with an increase in the gas tax to provide revenue to improve the highway. The downside is that there are probably more people from all regions of Virginia who use and benefit from I-81 vs. the number of Virginians from across the state who use (and benefit from improvements to) roads in Northern Virginia and Tidewater. For example, there are more people from Northern Virginia who use I-81 to reach JMU, Virginia Tech, and Radford multiple times during a year vs. people from Southwest Virginia who travel to NOVA/Washington, D.C. maybe once a year if ever.
Agree about give-away of free or almost-free passage for residents near I-81 for reasonable trip lengths. It appears to be between 40 and 50 miles for most trips from Blacksburg to Roanoke, for example. Perhaps the tolling could be for trip lengths over 40 miles only (and tolling starts on the first mile over 40)? I do not have any issue with making car-pooling 100% free with an E-ZPass Flex transponder either (but how many people in the I-81 corridor are interested in car-pooling?).
There's plenty of precedent in Virginia for special taxing districts that can levy (added) taxes on motor fuel sold in the district. The misleadingly-named Northern Virginia Transportation Commission has had a small tax on fuel sold in the counties and cities that are signatories to the WMATA compact for many, many years.
The Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) (Prince William, Stafford and Spotsylvania Counties and the Cities of Manassas, Manassas Park and Fredericksburg) also collects a tax on motor fuel that subsidizes bus and commuter rail (VRE) operations.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 06, 2018, 10:57:06 AM
Agree about give-away of free or almost-free passage for residents near I-81 for reasonable trip lengths. It appears to be between 40 and 50 miles for most trips from Blacksburg to Roanoke, for example. Perhaps the tolling could be for trip lengths over 40 miles only (and tolling starts on the first mile over 40)? I do not have any issue with making car-pooling 100% free with an E-ZPass Flex transponder either (but how many people in the I-81 corridor are interested in car-pooling?).
Actual distance on I-81 for a Blacksburg to Roanoke trip is 25 miles -- MP 118 (U.S. 460) to 142 (I-581).
With electronic/toll-by-plate and a 30/40-mile "free ride," that would take care of most of the NRV/Roanoke Valley trips, and probably most "local" trips for other parts of I-81 such as around Bristol, Harrisonsburg, Winchester, etc. -- anything over that short mileage would appropriately be tagged for a toll of some cost.
As to car pools, there is a large park-and-ride lot in Christiansburg and one at exit 140 in Salem -- both of which were just upgraded and improved. Virginia Tech has an Alternative Transportation office that works with people to set up carpools and gives a break on parking permits for carpools. If someone rides to work in a carpool but has to go home for an emergency, there is a service to provide a free ride. There are also several van pools for employees and bus shuttle service between Blacksburg and Roanoke (serves the VT Medical College and the Carilion Research Center) and Blacksburg and Northern Virginia.
I would have to go find the exact data, but there are substantial amounts of local traffic all along the corridor. Roanoke-Blacksburg is the most populated area, but there are many towns and small cities along I-81 and within the counties it passes thru. Probably 20% or more of the traffic at any point is trips of 30 miles or less.
The Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike sold books of commuter tickets at $4.00 for 50 tickets. I still have a couple of books. There was no electronic tolling back then. So that was a 8 cent ticket to give passage at a 25 cent mainline toll plaza, and the last 3 years the toll was increased to 50 cents, and the same tickets were used. It was a good enough deal that people in the area were reasonably satisfied.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 06, 2018, 10:45:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 05, 2018, 11:21:00 PM
-- A two-lane truck roadway each way
-- A two-lane car roadway each way
That would be a dual-divided highway with 4 separate 2-lane roadways, a 2-2-2-2 lane configuration, that is what STAR Solutions proposed. Truck roadways on the inside and car roadways on the outside.
Thanks for the reminder. That configuration seems pretty reasonable, perhaps with climbing lanes in some places (IMO not that many). The car lanes would have been "free," right?
I recall that the basic STAR plan was for tolling of trucks and cars being free. The Tier I EIS / location study had a variety of alternatives and one was a modification of STAR scheme that tolled all vehicles, had a two-lane truck roadway each way, had a basic two-lane car roadway each way that increased to three lanes or even four lanes in certain high volume areas. That could address the aforementioned traffic imbalances, but would result in a 10- or 12-lane dual-divided highway in some places, and that would incur construction cost issues as well environmental impact issues.
http://twitter.com/vadotsalem/status/1031934703975030784?s=21
Something must have happened on I-81 Sunday afternoon. As I approached it on VA 8, a VMS stated travel times to Wytheville and Roanoke. Normal travel southbound, but the sign reported the 30-something miles to Roanoke would take 60-something minutes.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 21, 2018, 10:06:06 PM
Something must have happened on I-81 Sunday afternoon. As I approached it on VA 8, a VMS stated travel times to Wytheville and Roanoke. Normal travel southbound, but the sign reported the 30-something miles to Roanoke would take 60-something minutes.
Better than what I saw just north of Fort Chiswell on August 22nd in 2017, the day after the solar eclipse (today is the anniversary BTW, I went to Tennessee to see it). The VMS said that the highway was blocked just north of Christiansburg, and said to seek alternate routes. I left I-81 and went down I-77 to US-58 to US-360 for the trip back to Richmond. Later reports said that a truck wreck was blocking the NB roadway.
Interesting statement in this long report --
"I-81 has the lowest proportion of Recurring Delay and the highest proportion of Incident Delay of any interstate in Virginia"
Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan Update
July 2018
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2018/july/pres/1_i_81.pdf
Quote from: hbelkins on August 21, 2018, 10:06:06 PM
Something must have happened on I-81 Sunday afternoon. As I approached it on VA 8, a VMS stated travel times to Wytheville and Roanoke. Normal travel southbound, but the sign reported the 30-something miles to Roanoke would take 60-something minutes.
Last weekend was move-in for Virginia Tech (classes started Monday) so the usual Sunday traffic on I-81 was "enhanced" by all those Hokie Moms and Hokie Dads heading back to NOVA after dropping off their little darlings. I-81 also suffers badly from ripple effects -- a minor slowdown (like something on the shoulder) rolls back through the heavy traffic for several miles. The 511 Southwest VA Twitter feed (@511southwestva) also had a string of accident reports on various parts of Christiansburg Mountain, which is notorious for being the location of many of the "wreck of the day" on this region's section (New River and Roanoke valleys) of I-81.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Having just returned from my first long term drive on Interstate 81 from Interstate 77 to the Virginia/West Virginia state line and back for the previous two weekends, traffic was horrendous in both directions. If there was ever an Interstate that needs expansion, Interstate 81 is the candidate.
While I'm sure this is a surprise to many, significant progress has been made towards funding I-81 improvements throughout the entire state. However, tolls will likely be involved.
https://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/highway-officials-release-draft-plan-to-fix-i--for/article_c607609e-23cc-55f4-b309-a6edd5cc0d2a.html
QuoteInterstate 81 motorists in Virginia would have fewer wrecks and spend much less time in backed-up traffic under a $2 billion upgrade proposal outlined in Roanoke Thursday.
Twenty-two capital projects are on a draft wish list developed by the Virginia Department of Transportation and scheduled for final presentation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in December and the General Assembly in January. A new northbound lane between Christiansburg and Interstate 581 in Roanoke County would be the largest project constructed in the area.
To pay for the projects, a draft financing proposal recommends an increase in the retail sales and use tax and the motor fuels tax from Bristol to Winchester. The draft proposal also foresees tolls – but not toll booths. Toll electronics on overhead mounts at six locations about 55 miles apart would assess money from trucks and automobiles.
QuoteThe study team found $4 billion in work that engineers think the road needs, but since mid-summer whittled that down to a draft wish list of the $2 billions' worth of projects that a scoring system found would do the most to reduce wrecks and time spent in stalled traffic and commuting .
That breaks down further to spending $882 million in VDOT's Salem district (which extends from mile marker 87 near the Pulaski County-Wythe County line to mile marker 174 between Buchanan and Natural Bridge), $886 million in VDOT's Staunton district and $252 billion in VDOT's Bristol district.
In addition to widening the highway in certain spots, crews would lengthen on and off ramps and make improvements on curves, such as by adding lighted curve-ahead signs.
Excluded from the $2 billion package, but included in the original $4 billion package, is a new southbound lane between mile marker 128 at Ironto and mile marker 152 north of Troutville and a northbound truck-climbing lane in Buchanan.
Valentine said repeatedly that the material presented Thursday in Roanoke was within a draft proposal subject to changes by VDOT and the transportation board before final recommendations go to Richmond. More than 2,500 comments from citizens and interested parties have so far been received, officials said.
In terms of widening, I-81 will be expanded to six lanes:
Southbound from Exit 10 to 7(Bristol)
Southbound from Exit 200 to 194(Lexington)
Southbound from Exit 225 to 217(Staunton)
Southbound from Exit 248 to 243(Harrisonburg)
Southbound from Exit 300 to 296(Strasburg)
Northbound from Exit 118 to 144(Roanoke)
Northbound from Exit 222 to 225(Staunton)
Northbound from Exit 243 to 248(Harrisonburg)
There is also around half a dozen locations where a truck climbing lane will be added. IMO the big snub here is no widening for I-81 southbound through Roanoke. Additionally, I find very difficult to believe that I-81 in the Winchester area was also not deserving of a 3rd lane. Heres the official I-81 corridor improvement plan on the Virginia CTB website:
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/i-81_study.asp
Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 26, 2018, 06:33:34 PM
In terms of widening, I-81 will be expanded to six lanes:
Southbound from Exit 10 to 7(Bristol)
Southbound from Exit 200 to 194(Lexington)
Southbound from Exit 225 to 217(Staunton)
Southbound from Exit 248 to 243(Harrisonburg)
Southbound from Exit 300 to 296(Strasburg)
Northbound from Exit 118 to 144(Roanoke)
Northbound from Exit 222 to 225(Staunton)
Northbound from Exit 243 to 248(Harrisonburg)
58 miles of 6-lane widening. VA I-81 is 325 miles of which about 25 miles has 6 lanes (as in about 50 miles total of 3-lane directional roadway).
Plus a variety of other improvements to interchanges and bridge replacements.
Unfortunately that shows how far $2 billion will go in today's highway construction world. Will it help? Yes, lots. But far below what is needed.
How are they going to apply for and institute tolls? You can't just slap tolls on a mainline Interstate highway. They gave up the slot for the TEA-21 pilot toll program many years ago.
^ They "gave up" the toll slot to put it on I-95. Given their own precedent, it's theoretically possible they could take it from I-95 and put it back on I-81.
Or they could toll the new lanes and only the new lanes. That's allowable under current Federal law.
Quote from: froggie on October 26, 2018, 10:46:31 PM
^ They "gave up" the toll slot to put it on I-95. Given their own precedent, it's theoretically possible they could take it from I-95 and put it back on I-81.
Or they could toll the new lanes and only the new lanes. That's allowable under current Federal law.
They ultimately had to give up the slot on I-95 as well.
Have 3 general purpose lanes and only one tolled? Not sure if that has been done.
^ Last I checked FHWA's webpage (admittedly some months ago, but since New Year's 2018), they still had the I-95 slot.
Hasn't been done in rural areas AFAIK, but there are three examples of such (2 free lanes plus one tolled lane in each direction) in the Twin Cities area.
Quote from: froggie on October 26, 2018, 11:02:04 PM
^ Last I checked FHWA's webpage (admittedly some months ago, but since New Year's 2018), they still had the I-95 slot.
Hasn't been done in rural areas AFAIK, but there are three examples of such (2 free lanes plus one tolled lane in each direction) in the Twin Cities area.
I don't see anything here about any state currently having a slot --
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tolling_and_pricing/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.aspx
Is that project you cite adding a HOT lane?
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/02/2018-21340/fixing-americas-surface-transportation-fast-act-solicitation-for-candidate-projects-in-the (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/02/2018-21340/fixing-americas-surface-transportation-fast-act-solicitation-for-candidate-projects-in-the)
QuoteThird, the FAST Act gave the States holding provisional approvals at the time the FAST Act was enacted 1 year to satisfy the program criteria or request an extension for an additional year. On the date of enactment, December 4, 2015, three States–Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia–held ISRRPP provisional approvals. Since then, all three have relinquished their program slots.
So FHWA has posted a new solicitation for 3 candidate projects. None of the 3 states advanced their projects, so they expired. So Virginia could reapply and most likely get a new conditional approval for I-81.
Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act; Solicitation for Candidate Projects in the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP)
A Notice by the Federal Highway Administration on 10/02/2018
Evidence that until the CTB considers its final plan at its December 5th meeting, improvements along the entire I-81 corridor are still very much subject to change:
http://www.winchesterstar.com/winchester_star/transportation-official-improving-i--in-frederick-county-a-real/article_9dec7782-90cf-53d1-aa08-981743e15b43.html
QuoteThere is a good chance that improvements to Interstate 81 from Exit 313 to Exit 317 (Winchester to Rutherford Crossing) will be recommended for funding, according to Dixon Wentworth, the area's representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
Wentworth made the announcement at Frederick County's fourth annual transportation forum, which was held Thursday night at Winchester Regional Airport. The forum gave citizens a chance to engage one-on-one with elected officials and transportation staff from various agencies. State delegates Wendy Gooditis, Chris Collins and Dave LaRock attended the meeting.
Wentworth said that VDOT staff has determined significant savings could be made in certain I-81 projects planned for other localities. Because of these cost-savings, more money can probably be redirected to other projects – including I-81 in Frederick County.
He said there is a "real possibility" that the state will be able to pay for widening from Exit 313 to Exit 317 northbound and southbound. The project would cost about $140 million.
The audience applauded at the announcement, though Wentworth reminded them that improvements to Exit 313 to Exit 317 are not a "done deal."
Earlier this year, the General Assembly directed the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation to study the entire length of the I-81 corridor in Virginia with the goal of identifying changes that will reduce traffic backups and crashes as well as to find the funding to make those changes.
Due to funding challenges, the state is focusing on getting just $2 billion worth of projects funded in the near future. The I-81 study team unveiled plans for 72 improvement projects last week to local residents at Shenandoah University. The 72 projects selected were based on a data-driven scoring system.
Several potential improvements in Frederick County, such as widening the road and adding auxiliary lanes from Exits 313 to 317, were not recommended to be funded as part of the initial $2 billion investment. This frustrated county staff and local law enforcement, who criticized the scoring system as being severely flawed. Many local officials claimed the county is more in need of roadwork than other localities that had more projects recommended for funding, including Harrisonburg.
Wentworth reminded the audience at the forum Thursday that what they saw at Shenandoah University was no more than a draft, and that it is likely to change. He also said that public support is just as vital a factor in determining what gets funded as statistics are.
Ben Mannell, VDOT project manager in charge of the I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan, has previously said that the stretch of I-81 between Exits 315 and 317 doesn't meet the traffic volume threshold required to be considered a "crash hot spot." However, he acknowledged that in a few years that segment of the interstate will become much more congested due to many planned commercial and residential developments and that will be taken into consideration before the final draft of the I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan is complete.
Certainly the $2 billion of proposed improvements along the entire I-81 corridor are still very much subject to change, given that it is about 1/4 of what would be needed for the end-to-end widening (*) that is needed; so they will need to find a way to prioritize projects along with a way that seems equitable in how the projects are distributed along the corridor.
(*) Using an average of $25 to $30 million per mile, which is a good benchmark today, that would be $7.5 to $9.0 billion for 300 miles of rural Interstate widening.
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2018, 10:52:24 AM
Certainly the $2 billion of proposed improvements along the entire I-81 corridor are still very much subject to change, given that it is about 1/4 of what would be needed for the end-to-end widening (*) that is needed; so they will need to find a way to prioritize projects along with a way that seems equitable in how the projects are distributed along the corridor.
Agreed, and hopefully whether its through other potential funding sources or just time(within 5 years), VA funds further I-81 improvements such as the ones proposed under the original $4 billion package.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 27, 2018, 11:41:19 AM
Agreed, and hopefully whether its through other potential funding sources or just time(within 5 years), VA funds further I-81 improvements such as the ones proposed under the original $4 billion package.
A major question I have is how they are justifying this, at least partially it looks like it will be outside of SMART SCALE, when supposedly when SMART SCALE was developed, every major project was supposed to be prioritized and justified thru that tool.
I wish we could go ahead and toll existing interstate highways. This is ridiculous.
Although I agree with you 100%, tolling Interstates has been illegal from the get-go. Of course, back then, and for a few decades after, the only kind of tolling was stop-and-pay toll booths. With electronic tolling, tolling should be easier, if they can get rid of that Interstate toll exemption (which I doubt will happen).
Adding tolls to Interstate bridges and tunnels has been done in some selected cases.
Adding tolling to a whole rural Interstate corridor is another matter.
The ISRRPP three toll pilot projects were authorized in TEA-21 back in 1998, and three states applied for and obtained provisional approval for a project. None have advanced toward an implementation.
If this is any indication of the "popularity" of this, then it doesn't look good at all as far as getting the public and elected officials to agree to it.
If people in the I-81 Corridor do not want tolls, will they go for an increase in motor fuel taxes in the counties and cities along I-81 from the Tennessee border on the edge of Bristol to the West Virginia border north of Winchester? That would be (IMO) a tax that is only to be spent on I-81 widenings; interchange reconstructions; bridge deck replacements; and (where warranted) bridge total replacement projects.
Who is saying that it is only the people living in the I-81 Corridor that do not want tolls, or that it is only those people who benefit from an increase in motor fuel taxes in those counties and cities for upgrading I-81?
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2018, 06:19:47 AM
Who is saying that it is only the people living in the I-81 Corridor that do not want tolls, or that it is only those people who benefit from an increase in motor fuel taxes in those counties and cities for upgrading I-81?
It's a natural reaction in most of the United States to any suggested increase in motor fuel taxes or an imposition of highway tolls or increases in same.
That's the reason that the federal per-gallon motor fuel tax has not been increased from 18.4¢ per gallon since the first Clinton Administration.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 29, 2018, 10:52:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2018, 06:19:47 AM
Who is saying that it is only the people living in the I-81 Corridor that do not want tolls, or that it is only those people who benefit from an increase in motor fuel taxes in those counties and cities for upgrading I-81?
It's a natural reaction in most of the United States to any suggested increase in motor fuel taxes or an imposition of highway tolls or increases in same.
To blame the people living in the counties that the highway passed thru for not increasing the taxes? I hadn't heard that one.
Let's face the facts. When the federal gasoline tax hasn't been increased, funds will need to be derived from other sources, mainly tolls or public-private partnerships. As we've seen in other states, tolls are an easier solution to bite than proposing what is ultimately a political death wish. It's how the East End Bridge (KY-IN) got built at nearly $4 billion, and how the Brent Spence Bridge (KY-OH) is proposed to be built at nearly $2 billion. And how the I-69 Bridge (KY-IN) is proposed to be built at nearly $1 billion. It's fantasy to believe that without pegging the gasoline tax with inflation as Kentucky does with their state gasoline tax, that states can afford to build such expensive projects.
Winchester Star: Transportation official: Improving I-81 in Frederick County a 'real possibility' (http://www.winchesterstar.com/winchester_star/transportation-official-improving-i--in-frederick-county-a-real/article_9dec7782-90cf-53d1-aa08-981743e15b43.html)
QuoteThere is a good chance that improvements to Interstate 81 from Exit 313 to Exit 317 (Winchester to Rutherford Crossing) will be recommended for funding, according to Dixon Whitworth, the area's representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
QuoteWhitworth made the announcement at Frederick County's fourth annual transportation forum, which was held Thursday night at Winchester Regional Airport. The forum gave citizens a chance to engage one-on-one with elected officials and transportation staff from various agencies. State delegates Wendy Gooditis, Chris Collins and Dave LaRock attended the meeting.
QuoteWhitworth said that VDOT staff has determined significant savings could be made in certain I-81 projects planned for other localities. Because of these cost-savings, more money can probably be redirected to other projects – including I-81 in Frederick County.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
To blame the people living in the counties that the highway passed thru for not increasing the taxes? I hadn't heard that one.
That's where the big reaction comes from if a tax increase is targeted at a specific county or set of counties (in this context, county also includes an independent city).
Pennsylvania was able to secure a massive increase in state motor fuel taxes in part because staff people from the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation's office compiled a (long) list of roads that would be posted with dramatically lower weight limits or entirely closed without a tax increase to pay for repairs, sorted it by legislative district for each member of the Pennsylvania Senate and Pennsylvania House of Representatives, and hand delivered those lists to every member, with the warning that they would be getting phone calls from angry constituents about postings or total closures caused by deficient or unsafe bridges.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2018, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
To blame the people living in the counties that the highway passed thru for not increasing the taxes? I hadn't heard that one.
That's where the big reaction comes from if a tax increase is targeted at a specific county or set of counties (in this context, county also includes an independent city).
Pennsylvania was able to secure a massive increase in state motor fuel taxes in part because staff people from the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation's office compiled a (long) list of roads that would be posted with dramatically lower weight limits or entirely closed without a tax increase to pay for repairs, sorted it by legislative district for each member of the Pennsylvania Senate and Pennsylvania House of Representatives, and hand delivered those lists to every member, with the warning that they would be getting phone calls from angry constituents about postings or total closures caused by deficient or unsafe bridges.
Hence the many TRUCK and ALT TRUCK routes I have to deal with now. (even with the tax increase)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2018, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
To blame the people living in the counties that the highway passed thru for not increasing the taxes? I hadn't heard that one.
That's where the big reaction comes from if a tax increase is targeted at a specific county or set of counties (in this context, county also includes an independent city).
I haven't heard that I-81 taxes would be targeted at cities and counties that it passed thru.
Tolls would affect them, but the latest proposal would provide them an annual pass for $25, a very small cost.
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2018, 06:45:39 PM
I haven't heard that I-81 taxes would be targeted at cities and counties that it passed thru.
(See reply #34 above for details.)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2018, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
To blame the people living in the counties that the highway passed thru for not increasing the taxes? I hadn't heard that one.
That's where the big reaction comes from if a tax increase is targeted at a specific county or set of counties (in this context, county also includes an independent city).
As someone who lives in one of those counties that could be targeted (Montgomery), this is a double-edge sword. Yes, those living along and using I-81 are well aware of the need to fix the highway. But the road serves more than just the localities that it passes through -- people from across Virginia use the interstate (or benefit from it) as do people from across the country. Unlike Tidewater and Northern Virginia, where specific taxes help remedy road problems in those regions, I-81 doesn't fit that mold. To burden just residents of those counties with an extra tax isn't a fair solution. Tolls would spread the cost of improvements across all those who use the road (or benefit, such as those who eventually/ultimately receive goods shipped by truck). If set up properly, tolls could be acceptable if regional trips weren't tolled (such as New River Valley to Roanoke or around Harrisonburg and Winchester) but trips outside those regions did have a toll (i.e., someone traveling from Blacksburg to Richmond would pay a toll somewhere along the way), residents might be more accepting of the toll plan.
However it works out, one project on the proposed list that should be moved high on any list is adding another lane to I-81 northbound between Christiansburg (MP 118) and Roanoke (MP 150). This is a major problem area, mainly the long downhill portions between exit 118 and Ironto. It doesn't take much for flatlanders and/or truckers to get into trouble and the resulting wrecks can block the whole road and cause backups for miles. An extra lane may not eliminate all the wrecks but may make it easier to keep traffic flowing.
Bruce in Blacksburg
I would think a gas tax increase would absolutely hit the people traveling through. It's a 300 mile corridor - someone driving the length of it is going to be getting food, gas, and, depending on when they pass through, lodging. It's just too long not to.
Quote from: VTGoose on October 31, 2018, 09:28:02 AM
However it works out, one project on the proposed list that should be moved high on any list is adding another lane to I-81 northbound between Christiansburg (MP 118) and Roanoke (MP 150). This is a major problem area, mainly the long downhill portions between exit 118 and Ironto. It doesn't take much for flatlanders and/or truckers to get into trouble and the resulting wrecks can block the whole road and cause backups for miles. An extra lane may not eliminate all the wrecks but may make it easier to keep traffic flowing.
Given the high local and thru traffic volumes between Christiansburg (MP 118) and Troutville (MP 150), that should be the first segment to be widened. I doubt that six lanes will be adequate for 20 years into the future, so they should make that eight lanes (4 each way) and upgrade the interchanges to a 20 year design.
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2018, 06:21:02 PM
Adding tolls to Interstate bridges and tunnels has been done in some selected cases.
Adding tolling to a whole rural Interstate corridor is another matter.
The ISRRPP three toll pilot projects were authorized in TEA-21 back in 1998, and three states applied for and obtained provisional approval for a project. None have advanced toward an implementation.
If this is any indication of the "popularity" of this, then it doesn't look good at all as far as getting the public and elected officials to agree to it.
Maybe if someone actually does one of these projects for the first time, then maybe that will 'break the ground' for getting a few more done.
VA I-81 would be a good place to start, but they will need to carefully build consensus with the public and officials and lobbying groups.
They don't necessarily have to toll the whole route, they could take each Segment of Independant Utility (SIU) thru its Tier II EIS/location study, and then decide on each how exactly it will be funded and whether it will have toll revenue bond funding. IIRC VA I-81 had eight SIU identified in the Tier I EIS/location study about 12 years ago. Also prioritization will occur as to when each SIU gets built, some may come soon and some may be well into the future.
I-81 in Virginia, which I had the privilege of driving yesterday, definitely leaves a bit to be desired:
(a) Six lanes would be nice.
(b) A bigger differential between the speed limit and "reckless driving" would be nice.
(c) Less cops running radar would be nice.
There are signs posted stating that trucks must use the right lane when operating below 70 mph, which basically means they may only use the left lane at exactly 70 mph, in order to comply with both said signs and the speed limit. I can't say I had ever seen anything quite so contradictory on the same roadway before!
I've also never driven on a 70 mph highway on which I was so hesitant to exceed 80 mph. I wouldn't bat an eyelash about doing 85 on most other 70 mph highways, say in PA or Ohio. But the heavy police presence, the "speed enforced by aircraft" signs, and the "over 80 mph constitutes reckless driving" had me really nervous to cruise at 85 or even 82-83.
Quote from: webny99 on May 14, 2019, 01:54:55 PM
I-81 in Virginia, which I had the privilege of driving yesterday, definitely leaves a bit to be desired:
(a) Six lanes would be nice.
(b) A bigger differential between the speed limit and "reckless driving" would be nice.
(c) Less cops running radar would be nice.
There are signs posted stating that trucks must use the right lane when operating below 70 mph, which basically means they may only use the left lane at exactly 70 mph, in order to comply with both said signs and the speed limit. I can't say I had ever seen anything quite so contradictory on the same roadway before!
I've also never driven on a 70 mph highway on which I was so hesitant to exceed 80 mph. I wouldn't bat an eyelash about doing 85 on most other 70 mph highways, say in PA or Ohio. But the heavy police presence, the "speed enforced by aircraft" signs, and the "over 80 mph constitutes reckless driving" had me really nervous to cruise at 85 or even 82-83.
Ditto on all those three points. The "trucks use right lane when operating below 70 mph" is meant to prevent micropassing, which can definitely occur on some of the uphill grades along I-81, when you get a truck going 65 trying to pass a truck going 60.
Virginia has some pretty scenery, but the ban on radar detectors makes me dislike driving in that state.
Quote from: webny99 on May 14, 2019, 01:54:55 PM
I-81 in Virginia, which I had the privilege of driving yesterday, definitely leaves a bit to be desired:
(a) Six lanes would be nice.
(b) A bigger differential between the speed limit and "reckless driving" would be nice.
(c) Less cops running radar would be nice.
Agreed on all points. Six lanes is desired, but the issue is cost and the fact we're dealing with VDOT - a broke state transportation agency. Maybe the fuel tax increase recently passed will get us somewhere - after it adds up in 20 years. Virginia has tried to raise the reckless driving threshold to 85 MPH on 70 MPH stretches, though it fails. I'll easily push up to 82-83 MPH usually (and still get passed on the left), but I will almost never exceed 79 MPH in Virginia. Too risky. Virginia State Police love enforcement and police trapping. Same with certain localities. You'll find them on any interstate really. I-95 from the state line to Stony Creek is a hot spot for both state and local police and same with I-295 around Hopewell, that stretch being enforced by Hopewell's police department, not State Police. I take I-295 often, I never once have not seen them hiding out in the median. They generally will wait till you exceed 80 MPH though, so they can slap that hefty fine on there for reckless driving.
Always good to have Waze on at all times, especially through VA. It's really helpful to know where the cops hide out. Just stay right and stick to 70 MPH (or whatever the speed is) when passing an enforced area, then continue back up to 75 - 80 MPH once away from the enforced area.
It's crazy, above 80 MPH is reckless in Virginia, yet in Texas, 85 MPH is the posted speed on one highway. The reckless threshold should be 85 MPH for 70 MPH stretches. Most would agree.
Quote from: webny99 on May 14, 2019, 01:54:55 PM
There are signs posted stating that trucks must use the right lane when operating below 70 mph, which basically means they may only use the left lane at exactly 70 mph, in order to comply with both said signs and the speed limit. I can't say I had ever seen anything quite so contradictory on the same roadway before!
Also agree. There's signage in Chesapeake on I-64 before the High Rise Bridge indicating the same thing - use right lane when operating below 60 MPH (the speed limit here). Wondered the same before.
Quote from: webny99 on May 14, 2019, 01:54:55 PM
I've also never driven on a 70 mph highway on which I was so hesitant to exceed 80 mph. I wouldn't bat an eyelash about doing 85 on most other 70 mph highways, say in PA or Ohio. But the heavy police presence, the "speed enforced by aircraft" signs, and the "over 80 mph constitutes reckless driving" had me really nervous to cruise at 85 or even 82-83.
For police presence, try to stay at about 78 - 79 MPH and use Waze. For speed enforced by aircraft, that program was terminated years ago. Don't worry about that, there's nobody in the air enforcing. They never removed it, probably just another way for Virginia State Police to lure drivers to slow down.
That means on I-4 in Florida over 90 percent of the drivers between US 27 and Tampa are reckless drivers. :bigass:
However this is from a state where radar detectors are illegal. 49 states say they are normal to have and even in transit (going from MD to NC where both states allow them) you could face a citation and I am guessing confiscation.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:30:51 PM
However this is from a state where radar detectors are illegal. 49 states say they are normal to have and even in transit (going from MD to NC where both states allow them) you could face a citation and I am guessing confiscation.
You can only get a citation and confiscation if the device is actively in use. If it's turned off and stowed away, then there's nothing illegal about it, nor can the police do anything about it.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:28:41 PM
That means on I-4 in Florida over 90 percent of the drivers between US 27 and Tampa are reckless drivers. :bigass:
I'd agree, and put that to any rural interstate highway that serves long-distance traffic.
It's easy to push 80 MPH in a 70 MPH zone. A lot of drivers are comfortable about 82 - 83 MPH when pushing over, and generally keeping with the flow of traffic (not the one crazy guy doing 95 MPH, in and out of lanes, etc)
That's why I'd support reckless driving charges start at 85 MPH or above, not 80 MPH.
Interesting. :)
No wonder why Waze is important to have here. :D
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:35:59 PM
Interesting. :)
No wonder why Waze is important to have here. :D
I have a phone holder in my car, I mount my phone on it, plug it in, and turn Waze on for hours on any road trip.
I don't play any games when dealing with any police, in any state.
But especially Virginia State Police, Emporia Police, and Hopewell Police.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
Virginia has some pretty scenery, but the ban on radar detectors makes me dislike driving in that state.
The fact that you can't just set your cruise control to 79 mph makes you dislike driving in a state? How fast do you want to go anyway ... 90+?
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:41:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
Virginia has some pretty scenery, but the ban on radar detectors makes me dislike driving in that state.
The fact that you can't just set your cruise control to 79 mph makes you dislike driving in a state? How fast do you want to go anyway ... 90+?
82 - 83 MPH is the ideal speed for most. Pull them over for speeding sure, but no need for a reckless driving charge. If I'm pulled over for doing 73 MPH in a 60 MPH, I don't get a reckless driving charge. But at 83 MPH in a 70 MPH, I do. Anything above 85 MPH on the other hand is reckless, and I 100% agree a reckless driving charge is warranted for that.
But that's illegal in Virginia, and you can't use a radar detector to identify where police traps are. Every other state in the country permits is, why Virginia doesn't is beyond. Seems like a revenue stream, that's what.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:07:02 PM
Virginia State Police love enforcement and police trapping. Same with certain localities. You'll find them on any interstate really. I-95 from the state line to Stony Creek is a hot spot for both state and local police and same with I-295 around Hopewell, that stretch being enforced by Hopewell's police department, not State Police. I take I-295 often, I never once have not seen them hiding out in the median.
Horseballs. I drive those highways frequently and 9 times out of 10 I don't see a single stopped police car.
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:45:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:07:02 PM
Virginia State Police love enforcement and police trapping. Same with certain localities. You'll find them on any interstate really. I-95 from the state line to Stony Creek is a hot spot for both state and local police and same with I-295 around Hopewell, that stretch being enforced by Hopewell's police department, not State Police. I take I-295 often, I never once have not seen them hiding out in the median.
Horseballs. I drive those highways frequently and 9 times out of 10 I don't see a single stopped police car.
Call it what you want, a lot of people would disagree with you.
Hard to deny the f-a-c-ts.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:45:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:41:04 PM
The fact that you can't just set your cruise control to 79 mph makes you dislike driving in a state? How fast do you want to go anyway ... 90+?
82 - 83 MPH is the ideal speed for most. Pull them over for speeding sure, but no need for a reckless driving charge. Anything above 85 MPH on the other hand is reckless, and I 100% agree a reckless driving charge is warranted for that.
But that's illegal in Virginia, and you can't use a radar detector to identify where police traps are.
... to break the law. "82 - 83 MPH is NOT the ideal speed for most", that is exaggerated.
I don't understand why 80 is "bad" and 85 is "peachy".
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:46:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:45:33 PM
I drive those highways frequently and 9 times out of 10 I don't see a single stopped police car.
Call it what you want, a lot of people would disagree with you.
Hard to deny the f-a-c-ts.
Internet warriors who never post that they were doing 15 or 20 or more over the speed limit.
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:45:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:07:02 PM
Virginia State Police love enforcement and police trapping. Same with certain localities. You'll find them on any interstate really. I-95 from the state line to Stony Creek is a hot spot for both state and local police and same with I-295 around Hopewell, that stretch being enforced by Hopewell's police department, not State Police. I take I-295 often, I never once have not seen them hiding out in the median.
Horseballs. I drive those highways frequently and 9 times out of 10 I don't see a single stopped police car.
Sherman Potter?
Well not quite, I think it was Horsehockey! But, reminds me of an episode of Mash.
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:48:03 PM
"82 - 83 MPH is NOT the ideal speed for most", that is exaggerated.
Then why when I go on 3,000 miles of interstate driving, traffic is usually moving at 79 - 83 MPH?
Occasionally you get the right lane 70 MPH driver, you pass the 65 - 70 MPH trucks, but most cars are maintaining 79 - 83 MPH.
Then the few crazy ones doing 90+ MPH.
The fact is that indeed the average driver is doing about 79 - 83 MPH.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:48:03 PM
"82 - 83 MPH is NOT the ideal speed for most", that is exaggerated.
Then why when I go on 3,000 miles of interstate driving, traffic is usually moving at 79 - 83 MPH?
Because your perceptions are not necessarily reality.
I got an interesting evaluation of speed enforcement around the state by colleagues at Richmond Police Department, two sergeants in the Traffic Unit, the unit that deals with this and other tasks.
I will post the details soon, but basically the Internet Warriors do exaggerate things considerably.
I generally do about 78 mph in most 65 and 70 mph highways in VA. Just like I would do in every other state with the same speed limit. Many people that claim they want to go over 80 mph in Virginia would also be saying they won't drive 10 mph over the limit anyway, so it's generally a moot point.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:07:02 PM
Agreed on all points. Six lanes is desired, but the issue is cost and the fact we're dealing with VDOT - a broke state transportation agency.
I wish I could be broke...with $5.4 billion in my pocket.
Virginia's DOT is far from broke. They simply have more needs than money available.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:45:20 PM
82 - 83 MPH is the ideal speed for most. Pull them over for speeding sure, but no need for a reckless driving charge. If I'm pulled over for doing 73 MPH in a 60 MPH, I don't get a reckless driving charge. But at 83 MPH in a 70 MPH, I do. Anything above 85 MPH on the other hand is reckless, and I 100% agree a reckless driving charge is warranted for that.
But that's illegal in Virginia...
Driving 83 in a 70 zone is illegal in EVERY state. Who says 82-83 is the ideal speed for most? I'd love to see stats on that one. And for what it's worth, it's not a guaranteed reckless driving ticket. A friend of mine got an 81 in a 70 in VA, and it was just a regular ticket.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:07:02 PM
I-295 around Hopewell, that stretch being enforced by Hopewell's police department, not State Police. I take I-295 often, I never once have not seen them hiding out in the median.
Should've been with me this past week. I didn't see them either direction.
QuoteThey generally will wait till you exceed 80 MPH though, so they can slap that hefty fine on there for reckless driving.
Site source. This is extremely contradictory to everyone else stating, including yourself, that it's a speed trap. 10+ over the limit isn't a speed trap. Especially if you're bitching you won't go 80 or over in the entire state.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:50:42 PM
The fact is that indeed the average driver is doing about 79 - 83 MPH.
So if you're going 83 mph, then half the traffic is still going faster than you?
Doubt it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 07:02:22 PM
Should've been with me this past week. I didn't see them either direction.
I was there Friday heading southbound, two cops positioned in the median running radar, and one cop pulled over on the shoulder. I see it frequently, I go up this way twice a month.
Hopewell is a well known speed trap. The fact you're trying to deny it is moot.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 07:02:22 PM
Driving 83 in a 70 zone is illegal in EVERY state.
Woah, really? I thought the speed limit was just a recommended speed.
I think its time for popcorn. :popcorn:
People will stop driving 81 if it turns into a "community grid". :bigass:
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:41:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
Virginia has some pretty scenery, but the ban on radar detectors makes me dislike driving in that state.
The fact that you can't just set your cruise control to 79 mph makes you dislike driving in a state? How fast do you want to go anyway ... 90+?
I have passed state popo doing 78 in the 70 zones and they haven't batted an eye. They really want that 80+ fine.
Quote from: famartin on May 14, 2019, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:41:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
Virginia has some pretty scenery, but the ban on radar detectors makes me dislike driving in that state.
The fact that you can't just set your cruise control to 79 mph makes you dislike driving in a state? How fast do you want to go anyway ... 90+?
I have passed state popo doing 78 in the 70 zones and they haven't batted an eye. They really want that 80+ fine.
Again, no proof. Cop could've been looking for something else. I was sitting in congestion once...a cop pulled out of the median and pulled someone over. Couldn't have been speeding then. Maybe a headlight or registration violation.
Also, many cops stop someone only to give a reduced violation. May be looking for 81+, but will only write for 79.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 14, 2019, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:41:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
Virginia has some pretty scenery, but the ban on radar detectors makes me dislike driving in that state.
The fact that you can't just set your cruise control to 79 mph makes you dislike driving in a state? How fast do you want to go anyway ... 90+?
I have passed state popo doing 78 in the 70 zones and they haven't batted an eye. They really want that 80+ fine.
Again, no proof. Cop could've been looking for something else. I was sitting in congestion once...a cop pulled out of the median and pulled someone over. Couldn't have been speeding then. Maybe a headlight or registration violation.
Also, many cops stop someone only to give a reduced violation. May be looking for 81+, but will only write for 79.
Do you believe that police trapping is baloney? Doesn't exist? Never happens?
Don't tell me you're one of those people.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 14, 2019, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:41:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
Virginia has some pretty scenery, but the ban on radar detectors makes me dislike driving in that state.
The fact that you can't just set your cruise control to 79 mph makes you dislike driving in a state? How fast do you want to go anyway ... 90+?
I have passed state popo doing 78 in the 70 zones and they haven't batted an eye. They really want that 80+ fine.
Again, no proof. Cop could've been looking for something else. I was sitting in congestion once...a cop pulled out of the median and pulled someone over. Couldn't have been speeding then. Maybe a headlight or registration violation.
Also, many cops stop someone only to give a reduced violation. May be looking for 81+, but will only write for 79.
Whatever helps you sleep at night 🤣
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 07:15:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 07:02:22 PM
Should've been with me this past week. I didn't see them either direction.
I was there Friday heading southbound, two cops positioned in the median running radar, and one cop pulled over on the shoulder. I see it frequently, I go up this way twice a month.
Hopewell is a well known speed trap. The fact you're trying to deny it is moot.
You're trying to salve and make excuses for your speeding. 9 times out of 10 I see no speed enforcement on that part of I-295.
Police policy is to not ticket for less than 15 over if that is the only thing not in compliance. You are not being "trapped" if you are stopped for 15+ over, you are speeding be any definition of the term.
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 09:15:41 PM
9 times out of 10 I see no speed enforcement on that part of I-295.
Yep, proved my point. Denying the facts, and denying the fact it's a well known speed trap that Hopewell has even admitted before. I drive that stretch I-295 frequently, and I know someone who is on it at least 3 times a week, and sees police almost everyday.
You might need to look a little closer into the trees, you'll see them.
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 09:15:41 PM
Police policy is to not ticket for less than 15 over if that is the only thing not in compliance. You are not being "trapped" if you are stopped for 15+ over, you are speeding be any definition of the term.
I've been pulled for doing 67 MPH in a 60 MPH on a limited-access, well designed highway around Emporia, in a police trap set up by Emporia police. I've had a friend pulled for doing 64 MPH. 64 MPH. That's not 15 over, that's 4 over. One guy radaring cars going by, then waving at his buddy to go pull them over. They get like 2 or 3 units parked in the median over the hill to catch unsuspecting drivers. I've seen this operation a-l-o-t.
Tell me it's not a police trap.
You're 15 over claim is nothing but the truth.
Just because you've never seen it with your own two eyes (and I'd be willing to be you have, it's hard to not), doesn't make it not true.
EDIT - Another part in Emporia, when you go over the US-301 interchange on US-58 Westbound right before I-95 and the road is going downhill, and the speed drops 15 MPH to 45 MPH. I've seen units parked there before radaring cars coming down the hill still over 45 MPH right in front of the 45 MPH signage, and bam. Pulled & ticketed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 09:20:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 09:15:41 PM
9 times out of 10 I see no speed enforcement on that part of I-295.
Yep, proved my point. Denying the facts, and denying the fact it's a well known speed trap that Hopewell has even admitted before. I drive that stretch I-295 frequently, and I know someone who is on it at least 3 times a week, and sees police almost everyday.
You might need to look a little closer into the trees, you'll see them.
Hopewell was quoted in a newspaper article that they don't stop at less than 15 over. 15+ over is "speeding" and is not "being trapped".
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 09:20:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 09:15:41 PM
Police policy is to not ticket for less than 15 over if that is the only thing not in compliance. You are not being "trapped" if you are stopped for 15+ over, you are speeding be any definition of the term.
I've been pulled for doing 67 MPH in a 60 MPH on a limited-access, well designed highway around Emporia, in a police trap set up by Emporia police. I've had a friend pulled for doing 64 MPH. 64 MPH. That's not 15 over, that's 4 over. One guy radaring cars going by, then waving at his buddy to go pull them over. They get like 2 or 3 units parked in the median over the hill to catch unsuspecting drivers. I've seen this operation a-l-o-t.
Tell me it's not a police trap.
You're 15 over claim is nothing but the truth.
Yeah sure uh-huh. How come speeders always claim to getting stopped for going a few miles over the limit but never admit getting stopped for 15 or 20 or more over? (because they couldn't call it a "trap", that's why).
The courts are a state function, not municipal, and if they get a bunch of people challenging moving violations for a few miles over, they are going to throw those tickets out, as they don't have time for that kind of nonsense, with all the other major things they have to rule on.
If the police really want "revenue" then they are going to issue real tickets for real violations for 15+ over and few if any of them will be dismissed by the courts.
In over a million miles of driving, I have often traveled at 7 or 8 miles over, and have -never- been stopped for that. I have had exactly one speeding ticket, and that was for 15 over, and if it wasn't on a holiday day (Labor Day) and heading into a small town speed zone I probably wouldn't have been stopped.
US-58 is only an hour from where I live, and I have driven it countless times, not because of need but because like many people here I like to drive on highways. I drive about 28,000 miles a year and none of that is to work. I typically set the cruise control on 68 or 70 on that highway in the 60 mph zones, and I have no worry about being stopped by police, and I do not have a radar detector. Plenty of vehicles travel in the same speed realm.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 09:20:18 PM
Pulled & ticketed.
How do you know they were ticketed?
The only way you would know is because you're a cop, or you were the one pulled over.
This discussion is like Dejavu with Ethanman 8675309 (or whatever his number was) and the cops on his fictional I-366. He said that no cop was giving out tickets to those going 85 then, and some argued with the kid that he knew nothing about cops and tickets.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 10:24:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 09:20:18 PM
Pulled & ticketed.
How do you know they were ticketed?
The only way you would know is because you're a cop, or you were the one pulled over.
I've already stated I've been pulled. Not on that particular stretch, but 67 MPH in the 60 MPH zone. It was back in 2013. A friend of mine was pulled at 64 MPH in that same 60 MPH, in 2016. But I suppose I'm "lying" to prove a point :-o :pan:
For other instances, no, technically I don't know they were "ticketed for speeding", but it says something when I drive through there, and I almost always see someone pulled over. I don't see that anywhere else.
For the record, I've not seen so much enforcement in the past few months there, though in December, November, August, July, and my other recent times through there, I've always seen them, one running radar, and one with someone pulled.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 10:50:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 10:24:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 09:20:18 PM
Pulled & ticketed.
How do you know they were ticketed?
The only way you would know is because you're a cop, or you were the one pulled over.
I've already stated I've been pulled. Not on that particular stretch, but 67 MPH in the 60 MPH zone. It was back in 2013. A friend of mine was pulled at 64 MPH in that same 60 MPH, in 2016. But I suppose I'm "lying" to prove a point
There is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). I've been counterposting speeders in online forums for over 20 years and it is the same old same old, tiresome and wasteful. Just look at the endless threads about "left lane blockers", for example.
How many times have you and your 'friend' been "pulled" by cops for 15+ over and what were the speeds?
If "pulled" for less than that then what others area(s) was the driver not in compliance with the law?
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 12:17:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 10:50:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 10:24:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 09:20:18 PM
Pulled & ticketed.
How do you know they were ticketed?
The only way you would know is because you're a cop, or you were the one pulled over.
I've already stated I've been pulled. Not on that particular stretch, but 67 MPH in the 60 MPH zone. It was back in 2013. A friend of mine was pulled at 64 MPH in that same 60 MPH, in 2016. But I suppose I'm "lying" to prove a point
There is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). I've been counterposting speeders in online forums for over 20 years and it is the same old same old, tiresome and wasteful. Just look at the endless threads about "left lane blockers", for example.
How many times have you and your 'friend' been "pulled" by cops for 15+ over and what were the speeds?
If "pulled" for less than that then what others area(s) was the driver not in compliance with the law?
I can see someone being stopped for doing 67 in a 60...if they're in the left lane of an otherwise empty highway. Cop may not say they were stopped for failing to keep right, especially if the law doesn't specify it, but if they have an arrogance towards left lane dicks they can stop someone for going slower than what's normally permitted and site them for a minor speed infraction anyway!
I've heard numerous times what a speedtrap Hopewell is. But like someone has their experiences, I have my experiences as well.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:07:02 PM
It's crazy, above 80 MPH is reckless in Virginia, yet in Texas, 85 MPH is the posted speed on one highway. The reckless threshold should be 85 MPH for 70 MPH stretches. Most would agree.
80 is laughably low for a "reckless" threshold. Even 85 is too low. I would say anywhere from 90 to 100 mph is reasonable, depending upon the speed limit and the quality of the road (but always at least speed limit +20).
It all depends on the context, too. In a rolling backlog with trucks passing each other, if you are weaving around people at 85+, then yes, you probably are behaving recklessly. But in nice weather with low traffic volumes, there is absolutely nothing reckless about driving 90 mph on a high quality road like I-81.
I've always thought the idea of designating a particular speed as automatic grounds for a reckless driving charge is sort of dumb. Some cops agree. I'm sure I've mentioned before that I was at the Fairfax County courthouse once waiting for the traffic docket to finish and one of the defendants was charged with simple speeding for going 98 mph on I-66 west of Fair Oaks Mall. The judge asked the cop why he didn't charge the guy with reckless driving and the cop said he didn't feel the guy was a danger to himself or anyone else–the weather was dry, it was late at night and there was a full moon, the road was empty, and the guy was driving a brand-new Corvette such that the cop concluded the guy gave in to the impulse to see what the car could do. The judge accepted that as reasonable, although he still gave the defendant some jail time. (Judges in Fairfax County will routinely sentence you to one day in jail for every mile per hour above 90. I believe Jayson Werth got a reduced number of days via a plea-bargain.)
Thing is, setting aside things like residential streets where it's often obviously reckless to go even 50 mph, I think we all know there are some roads where speeds of 90+ can be perfectly reasonable while there are other Interstates where 60 mph might be a bit much. I tend to think a law that allows you to be charged with a criminal offense (misdemeanor reckless driving)
merely because you went 11 mph over the speed limit (81 mph in a 70-mph zone) is a bit of a "gotcha" law. If you were going 11 mph over while weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating, passing on the shoulder (generally acting like someone from PG County, Maryland, in other words!), then sure, that may be reckless. But simply going 11 over with no other issues? That's always seemed a little unreasonable to me, and my feeling on that is underscored by the fact that for years we were fed the same BS line about "speed limits are set for your safety and it's unsafe to exceed them." Really? Then explain to me how it is that once upon a time it was "unsafe" to go faster than 55 mph on I-66 between Haymarket and I-81, but now it's "safe" to go 70 mph on the same stretch of road that now carries more traffic than it did in the 55-mph era with no significant design changes other than a small widening at Haymarket. It seems to me that if it is deemed "safe" to go 70 mph on I-66, then the threshold for what is "reckless" should likewise change because one aspect of recklessness would often be attempting to go considerably faster than everyone else on the road.
BTW, for those who don't realize it, speed alone is not the only basis for a reckless driving charge in Virginia. You can be charged with reckless driving even if you're not going very much over the speed limit. For example, a cop could probably write you a reckless ticket if you're weaving in and out tailgating and cutting off trucks, or if you use the shoulder to bomb past stopped traffic:
Quote§ 46.2-852. Reckless driving; general rule.
Irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving.
There are a series of other provisions following that section that prescribe other things that constitute reckless driving; for example, the next section (46.2-853) states, "A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a vehicle which is not under proper control or which has inadequate or improperly adjusted brakes on any highway in the Commonwealth." Illegally passing a stopped school bus that is discharging or taking on kids is reckless driving, too. I've long felt that reading a phone, like sending and receiving text messages while driving, should be chargeable as reckless driving under the "general rule" quoted above.
Quote from: webny99 on May 15, 2019, 10:36:27 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:07:02 PM
It's crazy, above 80 MPH is reckless in Virginia, yet in Texas, 85 MPH is the posted speed on one highway. The reckless threshold should be 85 MPH for 70 MPH stretches. Most would agree.
80 is laughably low for a "reckless" threshold. Even 85 is too low. I would say anywhere from 90 to 100 mph is reasonable, depending upon the speed limit and the quality of the road (but always at least speed limit +20).
It all depends on the context, too. In a rolling backlog with trucks passing each other, if you are weaving around people at 85+, then yes, you probably are behaving recklessly. But in nice weather with low traffic volumes, there is absolutely nothing reckless about driving 90 mph on a high quality road like I-81.
In NJ, 40+ over the limit is reckless driving, which makes it 105 mph in a 65 zone. It also makes it 80 mph in a 40 mph zone...65 mph in a 25 mph zone, etc.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2019, 11:47:39 AM
In NJ, 40+ over the limit is reckless driving, which makes it 105 mph in a 65 zone. It also makes it 80 mph in a 40 mph zone...65 mph in a 25 mph zone, etc.
When you think about it, what rational person would really disagree that 65 in a 25 is almost certainly reckless, given where 25-mph speed limits are normally posted?
Virginia's law used to be a little more nuanced than it is now. It used to be more than 20 mph over the posted speed limit, unless the posted speed limit were 35 mph in which case it was more than 60 mph, or in excess of 80 mph regardless of the posted speed limit. The statute was amended to delete that middle provision and to change the first part to "20 mph or more" over the posted speed limit. The latter was a minor change in the scheme of things.
Too many posts to try to answer and quote, so...
*Kentucky's speed limit on freeways is generally 70 mph. I tend to drive 75-77. And even then, I have my V1 on and will slow to 70 if it alerts. Most surface routes are still underposted at 55. On many of them, 60 or even 65 (like West Virginia signs its curvy four-lane corridors like US 119) would be reasonable.
*I think any arbitrary number being defined as "reckless driving" is bogus. 100 mph is not necessary reckless unless a driver is weaving in and out of lanes, cutting off other vehicles, etc.
*I have no desire to set my cruise to 79 in Virginia and run the risk of being targeted as an out-of-state driver. That's why I will stick to the speed limit on I-81 and be amazed at the number of vehicles that will blow past me, apparently without fear of being pulled over, despite my having seen lots of VSP cruisers in the median of I-81 in various locations between Abingdon and Wytheville (the stretch I most frequently travel). But what bothers me more is the 35-45 mph zones where in states not named Virginia, I would probably continue at 55-60 mph unless warned to slow down.
*On I-81, with the amount of traffic and the terrain, sometimes it's necessary to speed up a little more to pass a vehicle. It's easy to look down and find yourself doing 85 and it not seem appreciably faster than the 70-75 you were doing just a minute or so ago.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:29:59 PM
*I have no desire to set my cruise to 79 in Virginia and run the risk of being targeted as an out-of-state driver.
That sounds unfounded. I've seen countless out-of-state vehicles on Virginia Interstates going around that fast over the years and I can't think of one I saw yet getting stopped for that. Besides, you are an out-of-state driver in every state other than yours.
Go 75 or 77. That is still only a few miles less than 81.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:29:59 PM
*On I-81, with the amount of traffic and the terrain, sometimes it's necessary to speed up a little more to pass a vehicle. It's easy to look down and find yourself doing 85 and it not seem appreciably faster than the 70-75 you were doing just a minute or so ago.
No it is not, that is entirely under your control, and modern cruise control will maintain an exact or nearly exact speed.
Here is one of your favorite posters --
From: gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.transport.road,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: out of my way, punk!
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <f4353720-6cb5-408a-aa76-1d7bec3cfb54@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.27.157.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217311498 329 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2008 06:04:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:04:58 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.15)
Gecko/20080623 Firefox/2.0.0.15,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com misc.transport.road:8985 rec.autos.driving:7246
On Jul 24, 1:37 pm, N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 11:50 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 3:58 pm, Alexander Rogge <a_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The problem of traffic congestion is being caused by the LLBs, not
> > > necessarily the traffic density. This is very obvious when watching the
> > > brake lights in the braking waves caused when the LLBs cause traffic to
> > > bunch up behind them.
>
> > Traffic could not bunch up behind them...
>
> > It's a pretty simple matter to maintain a R&P following distance, but
> > of course many people seem to feel they don't have time for that.
> > They seem to have concluded a few car lengths closer to the vehicle to
> > their front will speed their travel.
>
> Most people, when coming up behind a significantly slower vehicle on
> the highway, will slow, but at the same time allow their following
> distance to close up a little. reason being that a) they expect other
> drivers to be "going with the flow"
You don't know what other drivers expect, and if they expect a
significantly slower vehicle to accelerate to go with the flow their
expectation is unreasonable.
> and b) a conscientious driver will
> not slow sharply unless absolutely necessary to avoid creating a
> "braking wave" behind them that will end with a panic stop by a car a
> few cars behind.
Lifting off the throttle a little sooner seems most likely to
eliminate any need for braking.
And a conscientious driver isn't so conscientious that they give a
rat's ass about any vehicle several vehicles to their rear.
You seem to have forgotten, the multitudes of morons on your roadways
are "perfectly safe"... or is this that r.a.d. exception... they're
"perfectly safe" as long as they never have to slow not of their own
accord?
> Also, they're looking for an opportunity to change
> lanes while slowing, and want to maintain as much speed as possible so
> as not to have to accelerate at full throttle to avoid cutting off
> another driver - or worse yet, find themselves stuck behind a slow
> driver and *unable* to accelerate fast enough to be able to change
> lanes around the slowpoke. (the latter being a good argument for not
> driving underpowered vehicles...)
The former being a good argument for recision of one's license.
An obsession with velocity, especially to the degree where one would
strive to "maintain as much speed as possible" is illogical,
especially for the ridiculous reasons you've outlined.
A few seconds or a minute or two makes no difference to the driver who
has allotted sufficient time to travel.
> > 999 times of 1000 brake lights on a highway most strongly suggests a
> > driving error on the part of those braking, since they could have
> > lifted off the throttle sooner and avoiding braking entirely.
>
> I would agree with that statement, except that I've actually been
> driving a POS '05 Impala for the last few years. Braking in that
> vehicle is unavoidable;
For you that may be true. A competent driver knows and compensates
for the handling characteristics of their vehicle.
> it has essentially zero compression braking.
> It will actually pick up speed on a slight downgrade with the throttle
> fully closed.
"Not your fault", huh?
-----
- gpsman
Driving the speed limit strictly on I-81 is extreme. Only time I got pulled over for speeding in VA was due to a speed trap in Waverly. Driven down I-81 many times at 8 or 9 above the speed limit with no problem.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:29:59 PM
*Kentucky's speed limit on freeways is generally 70 mph. I tend to drive 75-77. And even then, I have my V1 on and will slow to 70 if it alerts. Most surface routes are still underposted at 55. On many of them, 60 or even 65 (like West Virginia signs its curvy four-lane corridors like US 119) would be reasonable.
Agreed. Many surface highways can easily handle 65 mph. Same here in Virginia. I'm not complaining too hardly, a lot are 60 mph.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:29:59 PM
*I think any arbitrary number being defined as "reckless driving" is bogus. 100 mph is not necessary reckless unless a driver is weaving in and out of lanes, cutting off other vehicles, etc.
Agreed. If you're on a straightaway with no traffic, who are you harming going 100 mph? I'm not saying do it, but it's not "reckless".
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:29:59 PM
*I have no desire to set my cruise to 79 in Virginia and run the risk of being targeted as an out-of-state driver. That's why I will stick to the speed limit on I-81 and be amazed at the number of vehicles that will blow past me, apparently without fear of being pulled over, despite my having seen lots of VSP cruisers in the median of I-81 in various locations between Abingdon and Wytheville (the stretch I most frequently travel). But what bothers me more is the 35-45 mph zones where in states not named Virginia, I would probably continue at 55-60 mph unless warned to slow down.
Smart move probably. I'm not saying it happens all the time, but certain localities will indeed snag out of state drivers because the chances of them coming back to appear in court to fight off the ticket are way lower than if they are in state. Emporia has been called out for this in particular. I'm not so familiar with the I-81 corridor, though having driven it before, I've counted handfuls of cops waiting in the medians running radar. It's certainly not worth risking.
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
That sounds unfounded. I've seen countless out-of-state vehicles on Virginia Interstates going around that fast over the years and I can't think of one I saw yet getting stopped for that.
That's a lie.
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
Besides, you are an out-of-state driver in every state other than yours.
Wait, seriously? I never knew that.
But all jokes aside, I think his point is that A) you can have a radar detector, which all 49 states permit, except Virginia. Wonder why? It's revenue from police enforcement. There's literally no other reason why they haven't allowed them. B) Virginia has a rep for heavy police enforcement, and is unpopular among many people. Which interestingly, goes with the fact again, it's the o-n-l-y state a radar detector is illegal. It can be risky speeding in certain areas, where in other states, you may feel more comfortable.
Waze has been extremely helpful, and they can't ban that :bigass:
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
No it is not, that is entirely under your control, and modern cruise control will maintain an exact or nearly exact speed.
His point is that if you're not on cruise control and just cruising with traffic using the gas petal, it's very easy to reach 85 mph or even higher, and not even feel like you're going that fast. I would 100% agree with this statement.
Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2019, 04:31:50 PM
Driving the speed limit strictly on I-81 is extreme. Only time I got pulled over for speeding in VA was due to a speed trap in Waverly. Driven down I-81 many times at 8 or 9 above the speed limit with no problem.
No, remember, no speed traps exist in Virginia or any state for that matter according to Beltway and jeffandnicole. Can't say that, it's a lie, you were speeding, you get pulled.
But seriously, while you can go 8 or 9 over, it still carries a chance of being pulled, especially with the heavy enforcement of interstates in Virginia.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 15, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
But all jokes aside, I think his point is that A) you can have a radar detector, which all 49 states permit, except Virginia. Wonder why? It's revenue from police enforcement. There's literally no other reason why they haven't allowed them.
https://www.dailypress.com/glad-you-asked/dp-nws-radar-detectors-illegal-virginia-gya-20180927-story.html (https://www.dailypress.com/glad-you-asked/dp-nws-radar-detectors-illegal-virginia-gya-20180927-story.html)
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:52:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:48:03 PM
"82 - 83 MPH is NOT the ideal speed for most", that is exaggerated.
Then why when I go on 3,000 miles of interstate driving, traffic is usually moving at 79 - 83 MPH?
Because your perceptions are not necessarily reality.
Your perceptions are not necessarily reality. Pot, kettle.
Will also note that with traffic routinely moving at 74-77 mph, accidentally going 81-82 MPH is very believable. Would be nice to have a slight bit of leeway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 15, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
Smart move probably. I'm not saying it happens all the time, but certain localities will indeed snag out of state drivers because the chances of them coming back to appear in court to fight off the ticket are way lower than if they are in state.
A moving violation with points and fine? There is a -high- likelihood that it will be challenged in court unless it is a real violation such as 15+ over. Especially on a road like US-58 with high instate percentages.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 15, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
That sounds unfounded. I've seen countless out-of-state vehicles on Virginia Interstates going around that fast over the years and I can't think of one I saw yet getting stopped for that.
That's a lie.
The poster who hides his identity is accusing me of "lying".
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
I think his point is that A) you can have a radar detector, which all 49 states permit, except Virginia. Wonder why?
Some states prohibit them for commercial vehicles, and the federal government prohibits for all.
Why should any state permit a device that exists solely for breaking the law?
Besides, the point is moot, as there are several effective methods of speed enforcement that do not involve radio transmissions.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 15, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
His point is that if you're not on cruise control and just cruising with traffic using the gas petal, it's very easy to reach 85 mph or even higher, and not even feel like you're going that fast. I would 100% agree with this statement.
I've never had the problem, where the speed just jumps up by 10 mph without my noticing what is on the speedometer.
Some folks need remedial driver improvement training ... :-(
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 15, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
But seriously, while you can go 8 or 9 over, it still carries a chance of being pulled, especially with the heavy enforcement of interstates in Virginia.
How come speeders like Sprjus4 always claim to getting stopped for going a few miles over the limit but never admit getting stopped for 15 or 20 or more over?
How many times have you been "pulled" by cops for 15+ over and what were the speeds?
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 08:44:34 PM
The poster who hides his identity is accusing me of "lying".
Scott "Savage" Kozel :D :D :D
Personally, radar detectors are useless. When they are used, people wind up doing the fast-slow-fast-slow thing. You can usually tell someone has a radar detector when they're going a prudent speed in the left lane, then suddenly slow down to the limit or something even lower. Maybe there was a cop...maybe there was an electronic sign with radar to display one's speed. Either way, there's a jackass in the left lane that drives an inconsistent speed.
If you're using a radar detector and going within 10 of the limit, again, they're useless. The cop probably has already noticed you before the detector notices the cop. Chances are, the cop isn't going to bother with you at less than 10 over, regardless of what state you're from. I have NJ tags on the front my vehicle and a cop has yet to care outside the state. Since most cops will give that 10 mph leeway on a highway (except for sprjus4, as he will call me a liar due to his and his friend's experiences), the majority of people won't have any issue, with or without a radar detector.
If you want to drive 15-20 mph above the limit with a detector, then you're probably the right person for that equipment. Except, you're constantly being slowed by slower traffic going a normal speed above the limit, then you're speeding up, then you're slowing way down when the detector goes off, then you're speeding up again when its safe. The only thing that is missing from someone thinking you're driving drunk is some swerving action. And I bet most people with radar detectors still have received a ticket.
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 08:44:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 15, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
Smart move probably. I'm not saying it happens all the time, but certain localities will indeed snag out of state drivers because the chances of them coming back to appear in court to fight off the ticket are way lower than if they are in state.
A moving violation with points and fine? There is a -high- likelihood that it will be challenged in court unless it is a real violation such as 15+ over. Especially on a road like US-58 with high instate percentages.
Reread what sprjus wrote. That said, I don't necessarily agree that police departments intentionally snag out-of-state drivers. Referrring to VA, reckless driving probably requires a court appearance by everyone. In that case, let's accuse the police department is trying to help the local economy because a court appearance will be necessary, and someone will probably have to eat and stay in a local hotel. There's also been a lot of conflicting statements said in the last few dozen posts. If the cops are specifically looking for 10+ mph over the limit violators for the revenue, why would they care what state the person is in? Also, the cop has no idea if the instater lives nearby, or across the state. It's way faster for me to get to Fairfax County, VA from NJ than someone from Abingdon, VA, for example.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2019, 06:20:36 AM
If you're using a radar detector and going within 10 of the limit, again, they're useless. The cop probably has already noticed you before the detector notices the cop. Chances are, the cop isn't going to bother with you at less than 10 over, regardless of what state you're from. I have NJ tags on the front my vehicle and a cop has yet to care outside the state. Since most cops will give that 10 mph leeway on a highway (except for sprjus4, as he will call me a liar due to his and his friend's experiences), the majority of people won't have any issue, with or without a radar detector.
PDs are quite creative in the variety of unmarked vehicles they have, as I have seen at the local PD where I do volunteer work. Anything imaginable from sub-compacts to fullsize cars, pickups, SUVs, minivans, foreign cars, sports cars, business markings, old cars and new cars, etc. Plenty of blue lights hidden on the vehicle.
The officer in an unmarked vehicle can simply follow a speeding vehicle and pace their speed and then pull them over, no radar needed. Doesn't take much time with the engine and equipment packages they have. Repeat the process.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2019, 06:20:36 AM
There's also been a lot of conflicting statements said in the last few dozen posts. If the cops are specifically looking for 10+ mph over the limit violators for the revenue, why would they care what state the person is in? Also, the cop has no idea if the instater lives nearby, or across the state. It's way faster for me to get to Fairfax County, VA from NJ than someone from Abingdon, VA, for example.
There are all kinds of conflicting statements said in the last few dozen posts among speeders, and who is the guy whose stage name is a mountain (he recently got upset at me for criticizing pot on another forum)?
A highway like I-81 carries about 1/2 out of state vehicles, so many that they wouldn't care what state they were from, and if traffic was moving as fast as the speeders claim then you would be non-descript at 10 miles over.
^^ On top of that, it's not a given that an out-of-state plate means an out-of-state driver, especially in areas with military bases. Military personnel on orders are allowed to use their home-of-record (usually where they lived when they joined) for vehicle registration, or when they transfer they can keep their existing plates until they expire.
Quote from: froggie on May 16, 2019, 07:03:37 AM
^^ On top of that, it's not a given that an out-of-state plate means an out-of-state driver, especially in areas with military bases. Military personnel on orders are allowed to use their home-of-record (usually where they lived when they joined) for vehicle registration, or when they transfer they can keep their existing plates until they expire.
Rental vehicles. Usually out of state tags that are different from the renter as well as the last base of the car.
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:29:59 PM
*On I-81, with the amount of traffic and the terrain, sometimes it's necessary to speed up a little more to pass a vehicle. It's easy to look down and find yourself doing 85 and it not seem appreciably faster than the 70-75 you were doing just a minute or so ago.
No it is not, that is entirely under your control, and modern cruise control will maintain an exact or nearly exact speed.
No, I agree with HB. It is extremely easy to accidentally exceed 80 mph, and for three reasons:
* Cruise control is often not a possibility on I-81 in Virginia, due to trucks and trucks passing.
* It is wise to keep up with traffic in front of you while passing. Their speed -- and the speed of everyone ahead of them -- is subject to vary. It quite often goes in waves of 70-85-70. When I've been stuck behind other traffic for a while and finally get a clear stretch of road, my number one priority is speeding up to prevent further delaying those behind me,
not setting the cruise control.
* On the downhill stretches, you can start out going under 80 and if you're not paying close attention to your speedometer, soon be going 85 or better. I, for one, have a lot more important things to be aware of while driving than the exact number on the speedometer.
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:26:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
No it is not, that is entirely under your control, and modern cruise control will maintain an exact or nearly exact speed.
No, I agree with HB. It is extremely easy to accidentally exceed 80 mph, and for three reasons:
No, I disagree with yet another of his whines. I -never- have any problem keeping under XX speed, whether on cruise control or using the accelerator pedal.
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:26:39 PM
* Cruise control is often not a possibility on I-81 in Virginia, due to trucks and trucks passing.
This is internally inconsistent, as large trucks, especially when blocking both lanes, rarely go more than 75, and often are less than 70.
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:26:39 PM
* It is wise to keep up with traffic in front of you while passing. Their speed -- and the speed of everyone ahead of them -- is subject to vary. It quite often goes in waves of 70-85-70. When I've been stuck behind other traffic for a while and finally get a clear stretch of road, my number one priority is speeding up to prevent further delaying those behind me, not setting the cruise control.
This is internally inconsistent, as if both lanes are loaded with traffic, you rarely see fluctuations in that speed span range.
If the traffic is light then you can easily use cruise control, and even in heavy traffic I find it easy to increment up and down as needed in 1 mph increments, or disengage and later reengage; sometimes you need to disengage and use the accelerator pedal.
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:26:39 PM
* On the downhill stretches, you can start out going under 80 and if you're not paying close attention to your speedometer, soon be going 85 or better. I, for one, have a lot more important things to be aware of while driving than the exact number on the speedometer.
Baloney, any way you slice it. It's not like flying an aircraft where you have an array of instruments on the control panel. You only have a few important things to be aware of while driving and the number on the speedometer is important. In Driver's Ed they taught a quick glance every 5 seconds or so. Some folks need remedial driver improvement training ...
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 15, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
Waze has been extremely helpful, and they can't ban that :bigass:
There have been several instances of police agencies asking (demanding) that Waze remove the police presence reporting function, saying it puts officers in danger by revealing their location to the public. These demands have become more common as reports of police officers being shot while on duty have increased.
And if that fails, don't be surprised if they don't pull a "distracted driving" rabbit out of their hat because you were looking at a phone screen to determine the presence of the police.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 16, 2019, 03:35:14 PM
There have been several instances of police agencies asking (demanding) that Waze remove the police presence reporting function, saying it puts officers in danger by revealing their location to the public.
Trust me, if they removed it, there would be a public outcry, and a lot less usage. A lot of people use Waze solely for that function, so if that's gone, they'd loose a lot of people.
I'd hope they'd be wise and ignore the requests. It's just police departments trying to make more revenue so people can't see where they are radaring unaware speeders.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 16, 2019, 03:35:14 PM
And if that fails, don't be surprised if they don't pull a "distracted driving" rabbit out of their hat because you were looking at a phone screen to determine the presence of the police.
I use a phone mount, so I'd love to see them try me. I never actually hold my phone, it's essentially like being on my car's console - which is actually advised over a phone.
And even better - CarPlay supports Waze, so I
amon my car's console if I'm doing that.
I'm with Scott regarding cruise control on I-81. Except where you have to slow down for trucks or heavier traffic, it's not hard to maintain a consistent cruise control speed on 81. If it is hard, it's probably because the "cruise control" in your vehicle is horrid.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 16, 2019, 03:35:14 PM
These demands have become more common as reports of police officers being shot while on duty have increased.
Not appreciably. Number of police officers killed by firearms while on duty:
2014: 51
2015: 43
2016: 67
2017: 46
2018: 53
Source: https://nleomf.org/facts-figures/causes-of-law-enforcement-deaths
The stats on that page go back even further, and fluctuate quite a bit year-to-year. I would hardly call what we're seeing "a trend."
Quote from: froggie on May 16, 2019, 06:22:40 PM
I'm with Scott regarding cruise control on I-81. Except where you have to slow down for trucks or heavier traffic, it's not hard to maintain a consistent cruise control speed on 81. If it is hard, it's probably because the "cruise control" in your vehicle is horrid.
I added after market cruise control to the 1988 Chevrolet Celebrity that I had, and it was a major improvement over not having cruise control, but it did vary significantly on major upgrades and downgrades.
The cars I have had since then starting with a 1994 Buick LeSabre, have all had spot-on cruise controls.
My only experience with cruise control was during a trip in August 2007 when I drove a 2007 Chevy Silverado (4.3L V6) to Michigan. Cruise control was worthless in the mountains.
Quote from: LM117 on May 16, 2019, 07:45:08 PM
My only experience with cruise control was during a trip in August 2007 when I drove a 2007 Chevy Silverado (4.3L V6) to Michigan. Cruise control was worthless in the mountains.
What sort of mountains and what elevations? I can't say that I have driven at 10,000 feet or more anywhere, but at least up to 4,000 feet and 5.0% grades for Interstate highways.
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2019, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 16, 2019, 07:45:08 PM
My only experience with cruise control was during a trip in August 2007 when I drove a 2007 Chevy Silverado (4.3L V6) to Michigan. Cruise control was worthless in the mountains.
What sort of mountains and what elevations? I can't say that I have driven at 10,000 feet or more anywhere, but at least up to 4,000 feet and 5.0% grades for Interstate highways.
I forget the exact spot, but it was somewhere in WV on I-77 between Beckley and Charleston.
Quote from: LM117 on May 16, 2019, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2019, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 16, 2019, 07:45:08 PM
My only experience with cruise control was during a trip in August 2007 when I drove a 2007 Chevy Silverado (4.3L V6) to Michigan. Cruise control was worthless in the mountains.
What sort of mountains and what elevations? I can't say that I have driven at 10,000 feet or more anywhere, but at least up to 4,000 feet and 5.0% grades for Interstate highways.
I forget the exact spot, but it was somewhere in WV on I-77 between Beckley and Charleston.
With the amount of horizontal curvature and traffic on that highway segment, sometimes cruise control is not effective.
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2019, 03:05:36 PM
... ... ...
Yeah, OK. If your preferred speed is within a few mph of 80, it's very easy to accidentally exceed 80. Enough said.
Quote from: froggie on May 16, 2019, 06:22:40 PM
I'm with Scott regarding cruise control on I-81. Except where you have to slow down for trucks or heavier traffic, it's not hard to maintain a consistent cruise control speed on 81. If it is hard, it's probably because the "cruise control" in your vehicle is horrid.
Uh, yeah, that would be a rather significant percentage of the time.
Once your cruise control is on, of course it's not hard to maintain. But you can't even set it
at all with trucks passing, and its not worth setting unless it is going to remain set for several miles, which is not very likely. Traffic has to be pretty light in order for you to keep the cruise set for any significant distance, exponentially so the higher your preferred cruising speed is. (i.e. setting the cruise at 70 is a lot more realistic than 75+).
I drove a very new Jeep Compass (slightly more than 4,000 miles on it) for work yesterday to Paintsville, on the fairly gentle grades of the Mountain Parkway and US 460. With a new, modern vehicle like that, I'd easily pick up 5 mph going downhill with the cruise control activated. Engine braking was nonexistent.
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2019, 10:34:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2019, 03:05:36 PM
... ... ...
Yeah, OK. If your preferred speed is within a few mph of 80, it's very easy to accidentally exceed 80. Enough said.
When I set my cruise control to 79 mph on an Interstate my speed does not go beyond that even on downgrades.
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2019, 10:34:18 AM
Once your cruise control is on, of course it's not hard to maintain. But you can't even set it at all with trucks passing, and its not worth setting unless it is going to remain set for several miles, which is not very likely.
If trucks are passing then you are probably going less than the speed limit in any case.
I use cruise control in some cases on lower speed local roads. If I look ahead and see a mile or so of potential usage on, say, a 35 mph street, I let the cruise control do the work. Give my foot a rest but keep it near the brake pedal in case I need to brake.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2019, 12:18:09 PM
I drove a very new Jeep Compass (slightly more than 4,000 miles on it) for work yesterday to Paintsville, on the fairly gentle grades of the Mountain Parkway and US 460. With a new, modern vehicle like that, I'd easily pick up 5 mph going downhill with the cruise control activated. Engine braking was nonexistent.
Rather poor cruise control, IYAM, at least on a freeway. Above, 2016 Buick Lacrosse. My previous vehicles had similar results (2003, 1994).
Now on a 7% downgrade on a 2-lane highway, that might not hold, but there we are talking about a 55 mph speed limit, and I can downshift from 6 down to 3 and get it to hold the set speed fine.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2019, 12:18:09 PM
I drove a very new Jeep Compass (slightly more than 4,000 miles on it) for work yesterday to Paintsville, on the fairly gentle grades of the Mountain Parkway and US 460. With a new, modern vehicle like that, I'd easily pick up 5 mph going downhill with the cruise control activated. Engine braking was nonexistent.
Huh? I doubt that and haven't that kind of trouble with cruise control in a decade. Modern cruise control is pretty good, even on downgrades.
I frequently use cruise control on local roads, especially in school zones when the reduced speed limit is in effect.
I use cc almost all the time, granted sometimes it will only be good for a few seconds if someone gets in front of me unexpectedly or a light decides to turn. I try to make appearances in the left lane as brief as possible when using it, tho.
I've found my Prius cc extremely reliable, but on occasions when I needed a rental, they are hit and miss as far as how closely they stick to the speed. Don't remember what type of vehicle failed most in this area.
Funny thing about cruise control accuracy is that I've long found manual-shift cars' cruise controls to be more reliable at holding a speed than automatics' are, and that includes my 2004 TL (manual) versus my wife's 2015 TLX (automatic). But I will use the TLX's cruise in situations where I won't use the other cars', including in truck traffic on I-81, because it's an "adaptive" cruise control that adjusts the car's speed to maintain a following distance. It does take a bit of learning at first to know when the system is likely to brake hard or when you need to cancel it to avoid it letting someone cut you off, but that's relatively minor.