Virginia

[cpzilliacus]

A symptom of loss of institutional memory at VDOT's Hampton Roads District perhaps?

FYI (and for others who have commented on it), this is a City of Chesapeake project, not a VDOT project.

I recall you saying that, and it makes sense - but I would think that VDOT would want to review things of this nature anyway, since it involves Interstate and non-Interstate primary system signage.

[froggie]

VDOT's review would be to check that things are within standards.  And if we're strictly looking at standards, there is nothing against having the cardinal direction along a route being a little "off the actual direction of travel" if it's consistent with the cardinal direction for the route as a whole.  In other words, there is nothing specifically wrong or against standards by signing it as "West I-64" there.

[cpzilliacus]

VDOT's review would be to check that things are within standards.  And if we're strictly looking at standards, there is nothing against having the cardinal direction along a route being a little "off the actual direction of travel" if it's consistent with the cardinal direction for the route as a whole.  In other words, there is nothing specifically wrong or against standards by signing it as "West I-64" there.

It is certainly not wrong, but a thoughtful review of the plans by VDOT staff might have motivated someone to point out that directional banners there might be confusing for many drivers.

[mrsman]

VDOT's review would be to check that things are within standards.  And if we're strictly looking at standards, there is nothing against having the cardinal direction along a route being a little "off the actual direction of travel" if it's consistent with the cardinal direction for the route as a whole.  In other words, there is nothing specifically wrong or against standards by signing it as "West I-64" there.

It is certainly not wrong, but a thoughtful review of the plans by VDOT staff might have motivated someone to point out that directional banners there might be confusing for many drivers.

Correct.  It is one thing to have a west direction on a road that goes a short distance north or south, but going in the opposite direction is very confusing.  Thankfully, when I was there in late December, I found the control city usage to be so good that I didn't even focus on the directions and did not find the area confusing at all.

[amroad17]

The cardinal directions were tried in places in the early 1990's.  This , of course, did lead to motorist confusion.  The only place I remember seeing cardinal directions after this was on Military Hwy at Exit 297.  The signs could still be posted AFAIK.

These cardinal directions could be posted because this is a main highway from NE North Carolina so as to have motorists know which way I-64 ultimately goes.  It also could be part of the grander plan of the Raleigh-Norfolk interstate highway.

With hindsight being 20/20, what should have happened is that the cardinal direction for I-64 should have been changed from east-west to south-north when exiting the HRBT in Norfolk.  That could have solved some of the "cardinal direction" problem.

[cpzilliacus]

With hindsight being 20/20, what should have happened is that the cardinal direction for I-64 should have been changed from east-west to south-north when exiting the HRBT in Norfolk.  That could have solved some of the "cardinal direction" problem.

Putting aside future highway projects for the moment, I would re-route I-64 to follow present-day I-664 all the way to Bower's Hill. then have I-64 follow I-264 east through Portsmouth and Norfolk along its entire path to the end near Oceanfront Virginia Beach. 

"Old" I-64 would become I-664, and be signed as "Inner Loop" and "Outer Loop" - or North and South.

[Pink Jazz]

Now that Clearview is being rescinded, it will be interesting to see what VDOT does with new sign specifications.  Since 2014 VDOT has attempted to take corrective action on its past mistakes with Clearview by limiting it only to mixed case legend on positive contrast signs, only allowing Clearview 5-W (or Clearview 5-W-R if sign width is an issue), and prohibiting the use of Clearview numerals or fractions except if part of a destination name.  Will VDOT revert to Series E Modified or will they follow a similar route to ADOT by using plain Series E or some other variant of FHWA?

[Thing 342]

Now that Clearview is being rescinded, it will be interesting to see what VDOT does with new sign specifications.  Since 2014 VDOT has attempted to take corrective action on its past mistakes with Clearview by limiting it only to mixed case legend on positive contrast signs, only allowing Clearview 5-W (or Clearview 5-W-R if sign width is an issue), and prohibiting the use of Clearview numerals or fractions except if part of a destination name.  Will VDOT revert to Series E Modified or will they follow a similar route to ADOT by using plain Series E or some other variant of FHWA?

I doubt that any of the effects from the FHWA's decision will be widespread for a while, given the number of recent sign replacements around Richmond and Hampton Roads in order to comply with VDOT's new Clearview standards.

[cpzilliacus]

Now that Clearview is being rescinded, it will be interesting to see what VDOT does with new sign specifications.  Since 2014 VDOT has attempted to take corrective action on its past mistakes with Clearview by limiting it only to mixed case legend on positive contrast signs, only allowing Clearview 5-W (or Clearview 5-W-R if sign width is an issue), and prohibiting the use of Clearview numerals or fractions except if part of a destination name.  Will VDOT revert to Series E Modified or will they follow a similar route to ADOT by using plain Series E or some other variant of FHWA?

I doubt that any of the effects from the FHWA's decision will be widespread for a while, given the number of recent sign replacements around Richmond and Hampton Roads in order to comply with VDOT's new Clearview standards.

A lot of (relatively) new Clearview in VDOT's Northern Virginia District as well.

[Pink Jazz]

So, VDOT is actually replacing existing the existing Clearview signs where it was used as a drop-in replacement for FHWA with new signs that only use Clearview for mixed case positive contrast text?  If the existing signs were in good condition, why replace them?  Was there a severe decrease in legibility with the old Clearview signs?

[cpzilliacus]

So, VDOT is actually replacing existing the existing Clearview signs where it was used as a drop-in replacement for FHWA with new signs that only use Clearview for mixed case positive contrast text?  If the existing signs were in good condition, why replace them?  Was there a severe decrease in legibility with the old Clearview signs?

FHWA has rescinded the interim approval of Clearview.  I do not believe that they will have to remove any Clearview signs already installed.

[Pink Jazz]

So, VDOT is actually replacing existing the existing Clearview signs where it was used as a drop-in replacement for FHWA with new signs that only use Clearview for mixed case positive contrast text?  If the existing signs were in good condition, why replace them?  Was there a severe decrease in legibility with the old Clearview signs?

FHWA has rescinded the interim approval of Clearview.  I do not believe that they will have to remove any Cleatview signs already installed.

I meant prior to this week.  The two previous posts state that VDOT has been replacing a lot of signs to comply with their most recent standard for Clearview, which was adopted in 2014.  Prior to 2014, VDOT essentially was using Clearview as a drop-in replacement for FHWA.

[Thing 342]

So, VDOT is actually replacing existing the existing Clearview signs where it was used as a drop-in replacement for FHWA with new signs that only use Clearview for mixed case positive contrast text?  If the existing signs were in good condition, why replace them?  Was there a severe decrease in legibility with the old Clearview signs?

FHWA has rescinded the interim approval of Clearview.  I do not believe that they will have to remove any Cleatview signs already installed.

I meant prior to this week.  The two previous posts state that VDOT has been replacing a lot of signs to comply with their most recent standard for Clearview, which was adopted in 2014.  Prior to 2014, VDOT essentially was using Clearview as a drop-in replacement for FHWA.

I can't remember offhand, but I believe most of these replacements were of old FHWA signs, rather than replacements of improper uses of Clearview.

Nexus 6P

[1995hoo]

There were definitely some replacements of Clearview signs; the ones I've noted most often, due to my travel patterns, are along I-395. A few of those replacements were part of the HO/T project but others weren't.

[cpzilliacus]

There were definitely some replacements of Clearview signs; the ones I've noted most often, due to my travel patterns, are along I-395. A few of those replacements were part of the HO/T project but others weren't.

There was a slew of BGS panel replacements on I-395 in the vicinity of the Pentagon/Va. 27/Va. 110/U.S. 1/George Washington Memorial Parkway within the past five or ten years.  At the time, it was rather unusual, because VDOT went away from the riveted-together panels with round corners (long seen on Interstates and other high-speed roads around the Commonwealth) to  signs that looked very "Maryland," using the extruded aluminum "strips" instead, which have 90° unrounded corners.

[froggie]

First I've heard of this:  WBOC (a station on the Delmarva) is reporting that the Virginia Senate has passed a bill which would change the speeds at which a speeding driver could be charged with reckless driving.

As most of us know, current law allows police to charge reckless driving against drivers going 20+ mph over the limit or over 80mph, whichever is lower.  This bill, Senate Bill 768, would change the 80mph requirement to 85mph, leaving the rest of the law intact.

In short, this bill has no impact on roadways with a speed limit of 60mph or less.

No clue how the House of Delegates will address the bill.  The bill's sponsor in the Senate is from a district that covers from Salem and just south of Roanoke south towards Rocky Mount, eastward into Bedford County near the reservoir, and west through Floyd to Wytheville.  It includes parts of I-77 and I-81.

[1995hoo]

Thanks for that info. I hadn't heard about it either. I've always felt that giving a reckless for 81 in a 70 zone is sort of a "gotcha" law, though of course ignorance of the law is no excuse. Raising it to 85 doesn't mean you CAN'T get a reckless ticket for lower than 85, of course, since this is not the sole reckless statute on the books.

[Pink Jazz]

Now only if Arizona would change its equivalent law of speeds above 85 mph being criminal to 95 mph, that way we can have 80 mph freeways in rural areas where appropriate with a 15 mph buffer.  This law has killed every single effort to increase the AZ speed limit above 75 mph.

[WillWeaverRVA]

First I've heard of this:  WBOC (a station on the Delmarva) is reporting that the Virginia Senate has passed a bill which would change the speeds at which a speeding driver could be charged with reckless driving.

As most of us know, current law allows police to charge reckless driving against drivers going 20+ mph over the limit or over 80mph, whichever is lower.  This bill, Senate Bill 768, would change the 80mph requirement to 85mph, leaving the rest of the law intact.

In short, this bill has no impact on roadways with a speed limit of 60mph or less.

No clue how the House of Delegates will address the bill.  The bill's sponsor in the Senate is from a district that covers from Salem and just south of Roanoke south towards Rocky Mount, eastward into Bedford County near the reservoir, and west through Floyd to Wytheville.  It includes parts of I-77 and I-81.

You'd better believe Hopewell will be opposed to this...

[cpzilliacus]

First I've heard of this:  WBOC (a station on the Delmarva) is reporting that the Virginia Senate has passed a bill which would change the speeds at which a speeding driver could be charged with reckless driving.

As most of us know, current law allows police to charge reckless driving against drivers going 20+ mph over the limit or over 80mph, whichever is lower.  This bill, Senate Bill 768, would change the 80mph requirement to 85mph, leaving the rest of the law intact.

In short, this bill has no impact on roadways with a speed limit of 60mph or less.

No clue how the House of Delegates will address the bill.  The bill's sponsor in the Senate is from a district that covers from Salem and just south of Roanoke south towards Rocky Mount, eastward into Bedford County near the reservoir, and west through Floyd to Wytheville.  It includes parts of I-77 and I-81.

I know a few people that have gotten banged with a reckless driving ticket on I-81 in southwest Virginia (not sure if it is in that district or not).

I also know a parent of a friend of my stepson who got deservedly got nailed in Fairfax County for 65 in a posted 25 or maybe 35 (one of the streets around Tysons Corner).  When I was asked what to do, I suggested it was time to retain the services a good lawyer admitted to the Bar in Virginia to avoid a jail sentence.

You'd better believe Hopewell will be opposed to this...

Hopewell might not care.  As I understand it, the Hopewell speed trap on I-295 is about ticketing people for violating city law, not the Code of Virginia's reckless driving provisions (though the city's deputy sheriffs working the speed trap do cite drivers for reckless driving rather frequently).

As I understand it, violations of local government traffic laws result in payments of fines which go to the treasury of that local government.  Most summonses issued for violations of Virginia state traffic laws (unless reckless driving violates a city law) go to the Commonwealth's Literacy Fund.

[cl94]

You'd better believe Hopewell will be opposed to this...

Hopewell might not care.  As I understand it, the Hopewell speed trap on I-295 is about ticketing people for violating city law, not the Code of Virginia's reckless driving provisions (though the city's deputy sheriffs working the speed trap do cite drivers for reckless driving rather frequently).

As I understand it, violations of local government traffic laws result in payments of fines which go to the treasury of that local government.  Most summonses issued for violations of Virginia state traffic laws (unless reckless driving violates a city law) go to the Commonwealth's Literacy Fund.

That's common in a lot of states. New York breaks it up even further, with violations that earn points going to the state and those that don't staying local. For that reason, the courts are often very willing to reduce the violation to something without points, and you should take it even if the cost is the same.

[74/171FAN]

Put here since this bill relates to the entire state of VA:

From The Washington Post (Dr. Gridlock): Virginia bill would regulate tolling

House Bill 1069, scheduled to be considered by the Senate Transportation Committee, would limit the types of highways that could be tolled without legislative approval and it creates new limits on the size of fines imposed when drivers fail to pay tolls.

The bill would bar tolling on highways, bridges and tunnels unless the General Assembly approved, but it would not block the Virginia Department of Transportation from opening HOT lanes on Interstate 66, inside or outside the Capital Beltway. That's because the bill exempts projects that involve new construction and projects that involve conversion of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes into HOT lanes.

So the bill would do several things in response:

Require VDOT to notify Virginia E-ZPass holders by text or email of potential problems and require toll road operators, like Transurban, to try to collect a toll several times over a 10-day period.

Civil penalties and administrative fees would be legally capped for first time offenders at $2,200.

The time period for raising administrative fees from $25 to $100 would be legally raised from 30 to 60 days.

I do wonder if an addendum might be added for those not having EZPASS that must get a bill in the mail for the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels.  Also I do wonder how this would affect any potential expansion of the HRBT or the MMMBT (as in I guess the expansion of these facilities would almost have to be done with HOT lanes now).

[OracleUsr]

VDOT's use of mixed Clearview is very well-done.  I was with my wife in the Richmond and Tidewater areas of Virginia last August and admired (silently) the newer signage type.  Kinda NC-ish with Clearview mixed in properly.

[mrsman]

Put here since this bill relates to the entire state of VA:

From The Washington Post (Dr. Gridlock): Virginia bill would regulate tolling

House Bill 1069, scheduled to be considered by the Senate Transportation Committee, would limit the types of highways that could be tolled without legislative approval and it creates new limits on the size of fines imposed when drivers fail to pay tolls.

The bill would bar tolling on highways, bridges and tunnels unless the General Assembly approved, but it would not block the Virginia Department of Transportation from opening HOT lanes on Interstate 66, inside or outside the Capital Beltway. That's because the bill exempts projects that involve new construction and projects that involve conversion of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes into HOT lanes.

So the bill would do several things in response:

Require VDOT to notify Virginia E-ZPass holders by text or email of potential problems and require toll road operators, like Transurban, to try to collect a toll several times over a 10-day period.

Civil penalties and administrative fees would be legally capped for first time offenders at $2,200.

The time period for raising administrative fees from $25 to $100 would be legally raised from 30 to 60 days.

I do wonder if an addendum might be added for those not having EZPASS that must get a bill in the mail for the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels.  Also I do wonder how this would affect any potential expansion of the HRBT or the MMMBT (as in I guess the expansion of these facilities would almost have to be done with HOT lanes now).

I read an article about this and it seems that Hampton Roads area legislators are behind this primarily.  It seems to me as a way to mainly prevent new tolls on the HRBT or the MMMBT, unless they are new lanes.  I agree with this, as tolling the existing HRBT or the MMMBT would impose a mandatory new toll for the region with no conceivable way around.  But it will not prevent the addition of new toll lanes or converting HOV to HOT or toll lanes.  So if there were plans to widen the HRBT by adding 2 HOT lanes, that would still be permissible under the bill.

It seems that it also adds tollpayer "bill of rights" provisions.  The authors may not be aware of any difficulties for those crossing the Midtown and DOwntown tunnels without EZ-=PAss (it appears to be a small number of people who would be affected by it).  BUt I'm sure tthat a new driver-friendly provision can be added if needed.

[Jmiles32]

I heard that their were possible plans to convert the existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes on I-64 on the Peninsula and in Norfolk and I-264 in Virginia Beach. This would not add any new lanes. Would this still be allowed under the new bill?