Virginia

[cpzilliacus]

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?

If I am reading it correctly, no.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone support or oppose this bill?

[1995hoo]

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?

If I am reading it correctly, no.

According to the quotation in your post above, the bill would not prohibit conversion of HOV lanes to HO/T lanes.

[cpzilliacus]

According to the quotation in your post above, the bill would not prohibit conversion of HOV lanes to HO/T lanes.

But approval of the Virginia General Assembly would be required, as I read it.

[froggie]

According to the quotation in your post above, the bill would not prohibit conversion of HOV lanes to HO/T lanes.

But approval of the Virginia General Assembly would be required, as I read it.

From the WaPo article:

That's because the bill exempts projects that involve new construction and projects that involve conversion of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes into HOT lanes.

In short, conversion of the Hampton Roads area HOV lanes to HOT lanes would NOT require General Assembly approval.  I double-checked the text of the bill to verify this.

[cpzilliacus]

In short, conversion of the Hampton Roads area HOV lanes to HOT lanes would NOT require General Assembly approval.  I double-checked the text of the bill to verify this.

From reading previous media reports, it was explained that the exemption was for Northern Virginia HOV lanes only. 

There is apparently much more resistance to toll projects in Hampton Roads than there is in Northern Virginia, one reason why the Patriot's Crossing project is not going anywhere for now.

[froggie]

From reading previous media reports, it was explained that the exemption was for Northern Virginia HOV lanes only.

The bill makes no distinction between Northern Virginia and other areas.  Except for two specified entities (non-limited-access roads and I-81), the exemptions can be anywhere statewide.

There is apparently much more resistance to toll projects in Hampton Roads than there is in Northern Virginia, one reason why the Patriot's Crossing project is not going anywhere for now.

Part of the recent angst with Hampton Roads tolls is the reintroduction of tolls on the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels, and the politics and decisions made for that.  But it's odd you say this because the General Assembly bill would not block the Patriots Crossing as it would be considered "new construction".

[cpzilliacus]

Part of the recent angst with Hampton Roads tolls is the reintroduction of tolls on the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels, and the politics and decisions made for that.  But it's odd you say this because the General Assembly bill would not block the Patriots Crossing as it would be considered "new construction".

But people down that way seem to be adamant that they want new highway capacity across Hampton Roads but do not want to pay for it with tolls - in Virginia these days, that usually means no new capacity.

[froggie]

People down that way also want that new capacity to be an expanded HRBT, whereas the port and the state want Patriot's Crossing instead.  The issue is deeper and more complicated than what's being discussed here.

[cpzilliacus]

People down that way also want that new capacity to be an expanded HRBT, whereas the port and the state want Patriot's Crossing instead.  The issue is deeper and more complicated than what's being discussed here.

If I was asking for the port, I would not be especially concerned with where the added capacity goes (and I gladly concede that Patriot's is closer to most of their seaport operations and the Naval Station), but much more interested in getting crossings in both directions that complies with VDOT standards for overhead clearance on freeways (IIRC, it is between 16' (488 cm) and 17' (519 cm) - and having a little more than standard clearance is not a bad thing for a tunnel). That to me should be what matters the most, and given that Patriot's is presumably much more expensive than building new parallel trestles and tunnels at the HRBT (or even an all-overwater crossing, which I dislike for strategic national security reasons).

From the port perspective, I also think that traffic congestion on I-64 (and network redundancy - remember the U.S. 460 project?) matters more than having to pay tolls to cross.

[froggie]

The reality is that the Port is more interested in projects that would enable them to develop Craney Island.  Patriot's Crossing does that.  HRBT widening doesn't.  HRBT widening is on the table because that's what most drivers want, what Hampton wants, and past third crossing studies have demonstrated that it does far more for I-64 congestion than a third crossing (i.e. today's Patriot's Crossing) does.

[cpzilliacus]

The reality is that the Port is more interested in projects that would enable them to develop Craney Island.

I thought that was (mostly) a place where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dumped spoil from dredging operations?

Is it full?

Patriot's Crossing does that.  HRBT widening doesn't.  HRBT widening is on the table because that's what most drivers want, what Hampton wants, and past third crossing studies have demonstrated that it does far more for I-64 congestion than a third crossing (i.e. today's Patriot's Crossing) does.

The HRBT clearly needs to be more than four lanes wide.  Either one works in terms of network redundancy, though Patriot's Crossing spreads  the demand out more. 

I suppose that Hampton does not want another landing on its shore facing Hampton Roads?

[1995hoo]

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.

The bill froggie mentions above was killed by a House committee. Not a huge surprise: It turns out two similar bills were introduced in the House and the same committee killed both of those as well.

[Takumi]

The bill froggie mentions above was killed by a House committee. Not a huge surprise: It turns out two similar bills were introduced in the House and the same committee killed both of those as well.

No $urpri$e there.

[cpzilliacus]

No $urpri$e there.

There are unfortunately a lot of people (including elected officials) that do not wish to concede that highways are not "free," and at least in the United States, maintenance and improvements of same are generally funded by motor fuel tax revenue (and to a lesser extent by excise taxes on things like tires, and vehicle registration fees in some places) - or by tolls. 

Hampton Roads has plenty of highway traffic congestion (which users pay for with delays, wasted time and wasted fuel, and usually increased crashes), and unfortunately, being on the Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay, that means a lot of long and expensive crossings to get between places. To cross those large bodies of water, a toll is frequently charged.  Not sure why Hampton Roads should expect to be different - and the members of the Virginia General Assembly from rural and exurban areas absolutely do not want their constituents paying fuel taxes for anything new or anything improved (be it highways or transit) in the (sub)urban crescent of Virginia from Hampton Roads to Richmond to Northern Virginia.

[cl94]

No $urpri$e there.

There are unfortunately a lot of people (including elected officials) that do not wish to concede that highways are not "free," and at least in the United States, maintenance and improvements of same are generally funded by motor fuel tax revenue (and to a lesser extent by excise taxes on things like tires, and vehicle registration fees in some places) - or by tolls. 

Hampton Roads has plenty of highway traffic congestion (which users pay for with delays, wasted time and wasted fuel, and usually increased crashes), and unfortunately, being on the Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay, that means a lot of long and expensive crossings to get between places. To cross those large bodies of water, a toll is frequently charged.  Not sure why Hampton Roads should expect to be different - and the members of the Virginia General Assembly from rural and exurban areas absolutely do not want their constituents paying fuel taxes for anything new or anything improved (be it highways or transit) in the (sub)urban crescent of Virginia from Hampton Roads to Richmond to Northern Virginia.

Couldn't an extra fuel tax be added on the county level, as is done in some other states? Such a "suburbia tax" would only be charged in congested areas and would be used to fund improvements in developed areas. Would also have the added benefit of (possibly) providing an incentive to use mass transit.

[Takumi]

To be clear, I was referring to the post that said the recless driving threshold increase proposal is dead. I edited my OP as such.

[froggie]

I thought that was (mostly) a place where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dumped spoil from dredging operations?

Is it full?

The island's not full, but that hasn't stopped the Port from desiring or planning for building another marine terminal there.

I suppose that Hampton does not want another landing on its shore facing Hampton Roads?

It's not that.  Patriot's Crossing would connect to the Monitor-Merrimac, so technically it wouldn't be a TRUE "third crossing".  Hampton's opposition to Patriot's Crossing is that (as I noted upthread) the crossing's own environmental and traffic studies have shown that it won't do much to relieve HRBT congestion and adjacent impacts along I-64.  Given that either project will run 10-digits, Hampton would far prefer that money be spent on an expanded HRBT.  According to earlier studies, most drivers agree.

Couldn't an extra fuel tax be added on the county level, as is done in some other states? Such a "suburbia tax" would only be charged in congested areas and would be used to fund improvements in developed areas. Would also have the added benefit of (possibly) providing an incentive to use mass transit.

Such would still have to be approved by the General Assembly.  There are enough Grover Norquist-esque Republicans in the GA that would see such a vote as a tax increase, even if it didn't affect their districts.

[mrsman]

I thought that was (mostly) a place where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dumped spoil from dredging operations?

Is it full?

The island's not full, but that hasn't stopped the Port from desiring or planning for building another marine terminal there.

I suppose that Hampton does not want another landing on its shore facing Hampton Roads?

It's not that.  Patriot's Crossing would connect to the Monitor-Merrimac, so technically it wouldn't be a TRUE "third crossing".  Hampton's opposition to Patriot's Crossing is that (as I noted upthread) the crossing's own environmental and traffic studies have shown that it won't do much to relieve HRBT congestion and adjacent impacts along I-64.  Given that either project will run 10-digits, Hampton would far prefer that money be spent on an expanded HRBT.  According to earlier studies, most drivers agree.

Couldn't an extra fuel tax be added on the county level, as is done in some other states? Such a "suburbia tax" would only be charged in congested areas and would be used to fund improvements in developed areas. Would also have the added benefit of (possibly) providing an incentive to use mass transit.

Such would still have to be approved by the General Assembly.  There are enough Grover Norquist-esque Republicans in the GA that would see such a vote as a tax increase, even if it didn't affect their districts.

It seems to me that crossings over the Hampton Roads (64 and 664)  should remain free, but any crossings over the Elizabeth River should be toll (I-264, Midtown Tunnel, Third Crossing, South Norfolk-Jordan Bridge). 

[cpzilliacus]

I thought that was (mostly) a place where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dumped spoil from dredging operations?

Is it full?

The island's not full, but that hasn't stopped the Port from desiring or planning for building another marine terminal there.

That's reasonable.  Though it begs the question - where does the spoil go when Craney Island is full?

I suppose that Hampton does not want another landing on its shore facing Hampton Roads?

It's not that.  Patriot's Crossing would connect to the Monitor-Merrimac, so technically it wouldn't be a TRUE "third crossing".  Hampton's opposition to Patriot's Crossing is that (as I noted upthread) the crossing's own environmental and traffic studies have shown that it won't do much to relieve HRBT congestion and adjacent impacts along I-64.  Given that either project will run 10-digits, Hampton would far prefer that money be spent on an expanded HRBT.  According to earlier studies, most drivers agree.

Yeah, I think added capacity at the HRBT makes more sense.  Least impact on the Hampton and Norfolk sides, and allows the existing tubes to be totally shut-down for a through renovation (which I understand that they need).

Couldn't an extra fuel tax be added on the county level, as is done in some other states? Such a "suburbia tax" would only be charged in congested areas and would be used to fund improvements in developed areas. Would also have the added benefit of (possibly) providing an incentive to use mass transit.

Such would still have to be approved by the General Assembly.  There are enough Grover Norquist-esque Republicans in the GA that would see such a vote as a tax increase, even if it didn't affect their districts.

Agree with Adam.  There are taxes of this kind to provide transit operating subsidies in two parts of Virginia along I-95 from the City of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County north to the Potomac River, and an effort to increase same has been repeatedly killed in the General Assembly.

Speaking of which, there is an article in the [Fredericksburg] Free Lance Star about it just this weekend.  Because those taxes are effectively a form of sales tax (not a flat rate per gallon of fuel sold) on motor fuel, and the price of gasoline and Diesel has gone down enormously of late, much less money for those transit subsidies is being collected by both transit districts (PRTC in the south, NVTC in the north).  You can read the article here: Localities to lose millions in tax revenues due to low gas prices - TRANSPORTATION EFFORT TO CREATE TAX FLOOR FAILS

[cpzilliacus]

It seems to me that crossings over the Hampton Roads (64 and 664)  should remain free, but any crossings over the Elizabeth River should be toll (I-264, Midtown Tunnel, Third Crossing, South Norfolk-Jordan Bridge).

I must respectfully and vigorously disagree.

All of those crossings that involve long overwater sections or tunnels (or both) should be toll crossings, and ideally should have time-of-day tolling too. 

Such crossings are expensive to build and expensive to operate and expensive to maintain. 

[Pink Jazz]

I know that under the Patriot's Crossing proposal, tolls would have been added to the HRBT and MMMBT, but not the James River Bridge.  The expanded HRBT proposal on the other hand would have added tolls to all three crossings under the old rules.

[cpzilliacus]

I know that under the Patriot's Crossing proposal, tolls would have been added to the HRBT and MMMBT, but not the James River Bridge.  The expanded HRBT proposal on the other hand would have added tolls to all three crossings under the old rules.

IMO, the James River Bridge (U.S. 17) should definitely be tolled, to prevent shunpiking by trucks if the I-64 and I-664 crossings are tolled.

Owners of autos, motorcycles and trucks with GVW under 10,001 pounds living on the Peninsula or in  Isle of Wight County and the City of Suffolk should be offered deep discount E-ZPass plans.

[74/171FAN]

Posting here since it is unrelated to HOT Lanes, I-95 NB was closed between VA 3 and the north interchange with US 17 for emergency sign removal midday yesterday due to a driver crashing into the overhead sign at the exit for US 17.

[cpzilliacus]

Posting here since it is unrelated to HOT Lanes, I-95 NB was closed between VA 3 and the north interchange with US 17 for emergency sign removal midday yesterday due to a driver crashing into the overhead sign at the exit for US 17.

Yeah, that got a mention on the WTOP traffic reports yesterday, even after the festivities had wrapped-up.