Virginia

[Beltway]

Of course, Richmond is ridiculous when it comes to speed limits - there is no longer a single surface street in the city except for the non-freeway portion of Chippenham Parkway that has a speed limit higher than 35 mph. The last 45 mph speed limits on VA 147, VA 10 (south of Walmsley Blvd), US 360 (west of VA 161), and Warwick Road were lowered to 35 during the past few years. I fully expect that segment of Chippenham Parkway to get a 35 mph speed limit relatively soon.

I live near there and these reductions fit in with these "Road Diets" like on Warwick Road where two lanes of a busy 4-lane arterial were marked for bike lanes that get no use, in an area without the density to support any significant use.  Dumb decisions from the city council.

I don't think that Chippenham Parkway will see any reduction, though. It is an expressway between Forest Hill Avenue and Huguenot Road, and a freeway elsewhere.

[Rothman]

Let's just say that relieving officers, being paid salaries and benefits for other important duties through setting up simple canera trailers with one sunk cost and much cheaper operational costs has been found to be quite obviously mote cost effective on all sorts of levels, let alone increasing safety for the officers and general public themselves (e.g., law enforcement operating in a work zone has its own obvious logistical/operational complications).

Actually -- negative.

As of 2025, the Richmond Police Department (RPD) employs a dedicated team of officers to review and process photo speed enforcement citations, particularly those issued in school zones. While the exact number of officers currently assigned isn't publicly specified, the budget implies a team of roughly 5–6 full-time officers.

Richmond's photo speed enforcement program is managed in partnership with a private vendor based in Baltimore, and Richmond PD officers travel there to review citations. According to public statements from RPD leadership, officers are physically present at the vendor's facility in Baltimore to validate each citation before it's mailed. This ensures that a sworn officer confirms the violation meets legal standards and that the vehicle and license plate are clearly identifiable.

So those officers could be out doing real traffic law enforcement, not in Baltimore with a money sink. And that is just one city with about 220,000 population.

*citation needed* and it's VA's problem if they're doing it wrong.  Finally, I can only speak on cameras used for work zone speed enforcement wherw the benefits have been exactly what I stated.

[Beltway]

So those officers could be out doing real traffic law enforcement, not in Baltimore with a money sink. And that is just one city with about 220,000 population.

*citation needed* and it's VA's problem if they're doing it wrong.  Finally, I can only speak on cameras used for work zone speed enforcement wherw the benefits have been exactly what I stated.

"Citation needed" yourself. There are multiple problems pointed out about speed cameras in this thread.

There is far more overhead than one might think, and the cameras themselves are extremely expensive to have the technology to take those kind of precise photos at high speeds and in broad daylight.

I am certainly in agreement that speeding in work zones is a problem, and that more traffic  law enforcement is needed, but that speed cameras are not the solution.

I also know the work zones on I-64 GAP Widening (the subject here) and there are ample shoulders to pull speeders over via marked and unmarked cars.

[Rothman]

So those officers could be out doing real traffic law enforcement, not in Baltimore with a money sink. And that is just one city with about 220,000 population.

*citation needed* and it's VA's problem if they're doing it wrong.  Finally, I can only speak on cameras used for work zone speed enforcement wherw the benefits have been exactly what I stated.

"Citation needed" yourself. There are multiple problems pointed out about speed cameras in this thread.

There is far more overhead than one might think, and the cameras themselves are extremely expensive to have the technology to take those kind of precise photos at high speeds and in broad daylight.

I am certainly in agreement that speeding in work zones is a problem, and that more traffic  law enforcement is needed, but that speed cameras are not the solution.

I also know the work zones on I-64 GAP Widening (the subject here) and there are ample shoulders to pull speeders over via marked and unmarked cars.

Speaks volumes about the vakidity of your argument.  As someone that has a window into NY's program, all I can say is that your perspective is unfounded (especially with the scoffing off of a request for sources)...and that VA sounds like it needs to shape up if what you're saying has any inkling of truth.

[1995hoo]

Of course, Richmond is ridiculous when it comes to speed limits - there is no longer a single surface street in the city except for the non-freeway portion of Chippenham Parkway that has a speed limit higher than 35 mph. The last 45 mph speed limits on VA 147, VA 10 (south of Walmsley Blvd), US 360 (west of VA 161), and Warwick Road were lowered to 35 during the past few years. I fully expect that segment of Chippenham Parkway to get a 35 mph speed limit relatively soon.

I live near there and these reductions fit in with these "Road Diets" like on Warwick Road where two lanes of a busy 4-lane arterial were marked for bike lanes that get no use, in an area without the density to support any significant use.  Dumb decisions from the city council.

I don't think that Chippenham Parkway will see any reduction, though. It is an expressway between Forest Hill Avenue and Huguenot Road, and a freeway elsewhere.

Based on my admittedly unscientific observations in Fairfax County, I think sometimes the "road diets" are undertaken for reasons other than expecting the bike lanes to get a lot of use. For example, the stretch of Kingstowne Village Parkway in Fairfax County between Beulah Street and Hayfield Road, which had four lanes and a 35-mph speed limit through a residential area, got a "road diet" to two lanes (no change in the speed limit) because VDOT and Fairfax County said the vehicle counts didn't justify four lanes and they were having a major problem with speeding, people routinely going 50 to 55 mph and some people going faster. The thought was that the "road diet" would both psychologically induce people to slow down by making the road feel narrower as well as physically force them to slow down by making passing illegal. The people at that end of Kingstowne complained that restriping the road meant "there is no place to pass slowpokes," and I've seen some of them just going ahead and passing over the double yellow line.

(Edited to add: Here is a before and after Street View comparison. Most of the illegal passing occurs via that painted "median" in this particular area because you can see for a decent distance.)

[1995hoo]

Figured folks here might find this interesting. Watch the videos and note how the signal heads are aligned.

https://x.com/STATter911/status/1956342031531311351

[Beltway]

I also know the work zones on I-64 GAP Widening (the subject here) and there are ample shoulders to pull speeders over via marked and unmarked cars.

Speaks volumes about the vakidity of your argument.  As someone that has a window into NY's program, all I can say is that your perspective is unfounded (especially with the scoffing off of a request for sources)...and that VA sounds like it needs to shape up if what you're saying has any inkling of truth.

Photo enforcement of traffic laws is a very controversial subject.

Photo enforcement of traffic laws -- red-light and speed cameras -- sparks heated debate, and for good reason. Supporters argue they enhance safety, citing studies like the 2017 IIHS report showing a 21% drop in fatal red-light crashes in cities with cameras. They claim automated systems deter reckless driving, reduce police workload, and ensure consistent enforcement. Sounds good, right? But it's not all rosy.

Opponents scream it's a cash grab, not a safety win. Cities like Chicago have faced lawsuits over shortened yellow lights, rigging cameras for profit — $500 million raked in from 2006-2018. Privacy concerns loom large; cameras track movements, feeding data to who-knows-where. Then there's the fairness angle: low-income drivers get hit hardest by fines, and errors (like misread plates) can screw the innocent. Critics also point out studies, like a 2005 Virginia Transportation Research Council report, showing mixed safety outcomes — rear-end crashes sometimes spike.

Both sides have points, but the truth's murky. Cameras might save lives but often stink of revenue-driven puke-up.

NYS does not have any organization like the VTRC, and VTRC has national prominence and has since it was founded in 1947. Their research showed no net benefit in camera enforcement.

I am appalled that some Virginia localities are going forward with these schemes.

Once again -- I support real on the ground officer enforcement.

[Beltway]

Based on my admittedly unscientific observations in Fairfax County, I think sometimes the "road diets" are undertaken for reasons other than expecting the bike lanes to get a lot of use. For example, the stretch of Kingstowne Village Parkway in Fairfax County between Beulah Street and Hayfield Road, which had four lanes and a 35-mph speed limit through a residential area, got a "road diet" to two lanes (no change in the speed limit) because VDOT and Fairfax County said the vehicle counts didn't justify four lanes and they were having a major problem with speeding, people routinely going 50 to 55 mph and some people going faster.

Well then like with Warwick Road how do we account for it being made four lanes in the first place?

Back about 2000, the old secondary-style 2-lane six miles of Warwick Road was rebuilt to a modern 4-lane arterial, and in some places relocated, and on the last mile extended over the CSXT railroad and to US-1. Considerable R/W acquisition including buildings in some places. It was a VDOT project and had FHWA federal aid.

Now the Richmond city council wanted to take two of those 12-foot lanes that were built to handle cars, trucks and buses -- and mark them off for bicycles. Some of the posters here can confirm that this part of the city is low density in a suburban like format.

While the road is not gridlocked the traffic handling is much poorer.

There are a number of other "road diets" in the city like this, but I don't have detailed info on them.

Turner Road just west of the city line in Chesterfield County is very similar in a busy 4-lane rebuilt design about 2005 and recent road-dieting for non-existent bicycles.  Richmond area posters can confirm.

While Turner Road  is not a City of Richmond decision, the core city does seem to be infecting the bordering counties with this dysfunction.

[Rothman]

I also know the work zones on I-64 GAP Widening (the subject here) and there are ample shoulders to pull speeders over via marked and unmarked cars.

Speaks volumes about the vakidity of your argument.  As someone that has a window into NY's program, all I can say is that your perspective is unfounded (especially with the scoffing off of a request for sources)...and that VA sounds like it needs to shape up if what you're saying has any inkling of truth.

Photo enforcement of traffic laws is a very controversial subject.

Photo enforcement of traffic laws -- red-light and speed cameras -- sparks heated debate, and for good reason. Supporters argue they enhance safety, citing studies like the 2017 IIHS report showing a 21% drop in fatal red-light crashes in cities with cameras. They claim automated systems deter reckless driving, reduce police workload, and ensure consistent enforcement. Sounds good, right? But it's not all rosy.

Opponents scream it's a cash grab, not a safety win. Cities like Chicago have faced lawsuits over shortened yellow lights, rigging cameras for profit — $500 million raked in from 2006-2018. Privacy concerns loom large; cameras track movements, feeding data to who-knows-where. Then there's the fairness angle: low-income drivers get hit hardest by fines, and errors (like misread plates) can screw the innocent. Critics also point out studies, like a 2005 Virginia Transportation Research Council report, showing mixed safety outcomes — rear-end crashes sometimes spike.

Both sides have points, but the truth's murky. Cameras might save lives but often stink of revenue-driven puke-up.

NYS does not have any organization like the VTRC, and VTRC has national prominence and has since it was founded in 1947. Their research showed no net benefit in camera enforcement.

I am appalled that some Virginia localities are going forward with these schemes.

Once again -- I support real on the ground officer enforcement.

I find your summary of VTRC research inaccurate, especially since their work zone camera enforcement study won't be done until next year:

https://vtrc.virginia.gov/projects/all-projects/125976/

And, you overlooked UTRC in NY...Your  misinformation is considerable.

https://www.utrc2.org/home

[vdeane]

While I agree that cameras often have calibration/other issues, I suspect that most opposition to camera-based enforcement is from people who don't follow the law and who don't want a situation where they'd have to be 100% compliant.  With cops, it's "follow the law if you see one of their cars, otherwise go wild".  With cameras, not so much, especially since they can be installed 24/7/365.  Honestly, if we could actually make it happen with no calibration issues or anything, I'd be quite happy with raising speed limits to the actual target speed for people to go (ie, 75-80 on the interstate, etc.) with cameras ensuring people stick to the actual speed limit instead of "adding 10 over" or ignoring it when a cop isn't around, but I seem to be in the minority on that.

[Beltway]

Once again -- I support real on the ground officer enforcement.

I find your summary of VTRC research inaccurate, especially since their work zone camera enforcement study won't be done until next year:
https://vtrc.virginia.gov/projects/all-projects/125976/

VTRC did such camera enforcement studies back in the 2000s.

And, you overlooked UTRC in NY...Your  misinformation is considerable.

I don't look to NYS for any insights on highways.

They want to destroy urban freeways and not build anything new.

[Beltway]

While I agree that cameras often have calibration/other issues, I suspect that most opposition to camera-based enforcement is from people who don't follow the law and who don't want a situation where they'd have to be 100% compliant. 

That's the problem -- speed enforcement has never been about being "100% compliant" because that means that 1 mph over is an automatic ticket.

I am a uniformed volunteer for a major city police department (RPD), not a sworn officer but have 8 or 9 core duties that don't require such, so I don't issue traffic summons.  I know from inside knowledge that this department and departments in general don't issue speeding tickets for less than 15 over unless someone at the command level (captain or above) orders it. Of course that doesn't mean that some rookie might not sometimes ignore that; we don't live in a perfect world.

If the limit is 35, then 36 doesn't suddenly become "dangerous." Or necessarily 40 or 45. It is the nature of speed limits that some people will exceed them, and that LE doesn't have the resources to enforce an exact limit so that is why they have that leeway, or at least should have leeway.

[1995hoo]

While I agree that cameras often have calibration/other issues, I suspect that most opposition to camera-based enforcement is from people who don't follow the law and who don't want a situation where they'd have to be 100% compliant. 

That's the problem -- speed enforcement has never been about being "100% compliant" because that means that 1 mph over is an automatic ticket.

There was an issue some years ago (you can probably find news reports online) about a major controversy in the Australian state of Victoria. Speed cameras were set to ticket people for 3 km/h over the speed limit, but state law allowed for a tolerance of 10% speedometer error because of how expensive it is to repair a miscalibrated speedometer. The problem becomes obvious when you consider any road with a speed limit over 30 km/h.

....

If the limit is 35, then 36 doesn't suddenly become "dangerous." Or necessarily 40 or 45. It is the nature of speed limits that some people will exceed them, and that LE doesn't have the resources to enforce an exact limit so that is why they have that leeway, or at least should have leeway.

I would argue that many of the various speed limit increases in recent years prove exactly that point. Consider, for example, any Virginia stretch of Interstate now posted at 70 mph. Fifteen years ago, that same stretch would have been posted at 65 mph, and in most cases, nothing about those segments of highway has changed other than the number on the speed limit sign (with a few exceptions, to be sure, such as the 70-mph speed limit in the new I-66 HO/T lanes that did not exist before). To my mind, that underscores the fallacy of the argument that "speed limits are set for your safety and it is inherently unsafe ever to exceed the number on the sign." Of course everyone knows that argument is BS anyway, but in my mind examples like increasing the speed limit without making any changes to the road just prove the point.

[Rothman]

Once again -- I support real on the ground officer enforcement.

I find your summary of VTRC research inaccurate, especially since their work zone camera enforcement study won't be done until next year:
https://vtrc.virginia.gov/projects/all-projects/125976/

VTRC did such camera enforcement studies back in the 2000s.

And, you overlooked UTRC in NY...Your  misinformation is considerable.

I don't look to NYS for any insights on highways.

They want to destroy urban freeways and not build anything new.

You keep Beltwaying, Beltway.  Imagine it being 1995 and someone says, "Cameras are bad because there was a study done in 1975"...

[1995hoo]

Once again -- I support real on the ground officer enforcement.

I find your summary of VTRC research inaccurate, especially since their work zone camera enforcement study won't be done until next year:
https://vtrc.virginia.gov/projects/all-projects/125976/

VTRC did such camera enforcement studies back in the 2000s.

And, you overlooked UTRC in NY...Your  misinformation is considerable.

I don't look to NYS for any insights on highways.

They want to destroy urban freeways and not build anything new.

You keep Beltwaying, Beltway.  Imagine it being 1995 and someone says, "Cameras are bad because there was a study done in 1975"...

Hey, this is the Virginia thread, after all. Our Supreme Court is generally described as operating under the principle of, "If it ain't been ruled on in a hunnert years, there ain't no need to address it now."

[Beltway]

You keep Beltwaying, Beltway.  Imagine it being 1995 and someone says, "Cameras are bad because there was a study done in 1975"...

Mid- and late 2000s is fairly recent. We're not talking about something like advances in microprocessors and memory devices. The tech was there to take high-quality photos of fast moving vehicles and their plates.

 And a few localities (I think VA Beach was one) were ignoring that within a few years and doing it anyhow.

Hey, this is the Virginia thread, after all. Our Supreme Court is generally described as operating under the principle of, "If it ain't been ruled on in a hunnert years, there ain't no need to address it now."

I don't think it has been taken to the courts in the first place.

VTRC like the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) does quality cutting edge transportation research.

VTRC: Virginia's Cutting-Edge Research Arm
+ Established in 1948 as a joint venture between VDOT and the University of Virginia
+ Specializes in applied research, technical consulting, and pilot testing for:
+ Pavements and materials
+ Structures and bridges
+ Traffic operations and safety
+ Environmental resilience
+ Transportation planning and system optimization
+ Provides direct implementation support to VDOT field offices and trains future transportation professionals through UVA partnerships

[1995hoo]

Hey, this is the Virginia thread, after all. Our Supreme Court is generally described as operating under the principle of, "If it ain't been ruled on in a hunnert years, there ain't no need to address it now."

I don't think it has been taken to the courts in the first place.

....

That's not what I meant. I was responding to Rothman's comment about drawing a conclusion in 1995 from a study done in 1975. He was pretty clearly suggesting it would be absurd to do that and my point was more in the nature of saying not to be so sure.

[sprjus4]

The city of Suffolk has been the most egregious with work zone speed cameras in Virginia. They also have school zone speed cameras at most of their schools, and red light cameras at a large number of intersections, even smaller ones.

For speed cameras, they currently have two along US-58, one at the SPSA interchange project location that is lowered to 50 mph (not sure why the reduction from 60 mph, but the cameras sort of explain it), along with US-58 west of Suffolk.

US-460 north of Suffolk also had speed cameras for a small work zone recently, but have gone away since it was complete.

Suffolk has conveniently only used speed cameras on US-58 and US-460, which are the two major highways for through traffic leaving / entering the metro, but none on any local or arterial roads.

They even post signs at the city limits alerting that traffic laws are photo enforced. They have been extremely notorious for speed enforcement via cameras, and excessive with red light cameras citywide, since the speed camera laws were passed a few years back. They have generated millions and millions of dollars in revenue. There are several articles out about it, including lawsuits that have occurred. It's strictly a revenue generating scheme for the city.

[Rothman]

The city of Suffolk has been the most egregious with work zone speed cameras in Virginia. They also have school zone speed cameras at most of their schools, and red light cameras at a large number of intersections, even smaller ones.

For speed cameras, they currently have two along US-58, one at the SPSA interchange project location that is lowered to 50 mph (not sure why the reduction from 60 mph, but the cameras sort of explain it), along with US-58 west of Suffolk.

US-460 north of Suffolk also had speed cameras for a small work zone recently, but have gone away since it was complete.

Suffolk has conveniently only used speed cameras on US-58 and US-460, which are the two major highways for through traffic leaving / entering the metro, but none on any local or arterial roads.

They even post signs at the city limits alerting that traffic laws are photo enforced. They have been extremely notorious for speed enforcement via cameras, and excessive with red light cameras citywide, since the speed camera laws were passed a few years back. They have generated millions and millions of dollars in revenue. There are several articles out about it, including lawsuits that have occurred. It's strictly a revenue generating scheme for the city.

If they're just a revenue stream, then how did the lawsuits turn out?

[sprjus4]

The city of Suffolk has been the most egregious with work zone speed cameras in Virginia. They also have school zone speed cameras at most of their schools, and red light cameras at a large number of intersections, even smaller ones.

For speed cameras, they currently have two along US-58, one at the SPSA interchange project location that is lowered to 50 mph (not sure why the reduction from 60 mph, but the cameras sort of explain it), along with US-58 west of Suffolk.

US-460 north of Suffolk also had speed cameras for a small work zone recently, but have gone away since it was complete.

Suffolk has conveniently only used speed cameras on US-58 and US-460, which are the two major highways for through traffic leaving / entering the metro, but none on any local or arterial roads.

They even post signs at the city limits alerting that traffic laws are photo enforced. They have been extremely notorious for speed enforcement via cameras, and excessive with red light cameras citywide, since the speed camera laws were passed a few years back. They have generated millions and millions of dollars in revenue. There are several articles out about it, including lawsuits that have occurred. It's strictly a revenue generating scheme for the city.

If they're just a revenue stream, then how did the lawsuits turn out?

It is currently in the Virginia Court of Appeals. It was dismissed initially by a city of Suffolk court (gee, wonder why).

Suffolk made $12.5 million in camera revenue in FY 2024 alone. It's a revenue stream. Lowering a speed limit from 60 mph to 50 mph on a freeway because of a jersey barrier, no lane shifts, or any major traffic impact, and then attaching a camera to it with a small "photo enforced" sign hardly noticeable, is about revenue.

Same with their, now complete, 55 mph to 25 mph reduction along US-460 for a median project.

[Rothman]

The city of Suffolk has been the most egregious with work zone speed cameras in Virginia. They also have school zone speed cameras at most of their schools, and red light cameras at a large number of intersections, even smaller ones.

For speed cameras, they currently have two along US-58, one at the SPSA interchange project location that is lowered to 50 mph (not sure why the reduction from 60 mph, but the cameras sort of explain it), along with US-58 west of Suffolk.

US-460 north of Suffolk also had speed cameras for a small work zone recently, but have gone away since it was complete.

Suffolk has conveniently only used speed cameras on US-58 and US-460, which are the two major highways for through traffic leaving / entering the metro, but none on any local or arterial roads.

They even post signs at the city limits alerting that traffic laws are photo enforced. They have been extremely notorious for speed enforcement via cameras, and excessive with red light cameras citywide, since the speed camera laws were passed a few years back. They have generated millions and millions of dollars in revenue. There are several articles out about it, including lawsuits that have occurred. It's strictly a revenue generating scheme for the city.

If they're just a revenue stream, then how did the lawsuits turn out?

It is currently in the Virginia Court of Appeals. It was dismissed initially by a city of Suffolk court (gee, wonder why).

Suffolk made $12.5 million in camera revenue in FY 2024 alone. It's a revenue stream.

The city of Suffolk has been the most egregious with work zone speed cameras in Virginia. They also have school zone speed cameras at most of their schools, and red light cameras at a large number of intersections, even smaller ones.

For speed cameras, they currently have two along US-58, one at the SPSA interchange project location that is lowered to 50 mph (not sure why the reduction from 60 mph, but the cameras sort of explain it), along with US-58 west of Suffolk.

US-460 north of Suffolk also had speed cameras for a small work zone recently, but have gone away since it was complete.

Suffolk has conveniently only used speed cameras on US-58 and US-460, which are the two major highways for through traffic leaving / entering the metro, but none on any local or arterial roads.

They even post signs at the city limits alerting that traffic laws are photo enforced. They have been extremely notorious for speed enforcement via cameras, and excessive with red light cameras citywide, since the speed camera laws were passed a few years back. They have generated millions and millions of dollars in revenue. There are several articles out about it, including lawsuits that have occurred. It's strictly a revenue generating scheme for the city.

If they're just a revenue stream, then how did the lawsuits turn out?

It is currently in the Virginia Court of Appeals. It was dismissed initially by a city of Suffolk court (gee, wonder why).

Suffolk made $12.5 million in camera revenue in FY 2024 alone. It's a revenue stream.

Heh.  We'll see if the Courts agree with you.

[sprjus4]

The city of Suffolk has been the most egregious with work zone speed cameras in Virginia. They also have school zone speed cameras at most of their schools, and red light cameras at a large number of intersections, even smaller ones.

For speed cameras, they currently have two along US-58, one at the SPSA interchange project location that is lowered to 50 mph (not sure why the reduction from 60 mph, but the cameras sort of explain it), along with US-58 west of Suffolk.

US-460 north of Suffolk also had speed cameras for a small work zone recently, but have gone away since it was complete.

Suffolk has conveniently only used speed cameras on US-58 and US-460, which are the two major highways for through traffic leaving / entering the metro, but none on any local or arterial roads.

They even post signs at the city limits alerting that traffic laws are photo enforced. They have been extremely notorious for speed enforcement via cameras, and excessive with red light cameras citywide, since the speed camera laws were passed a few years back. They have generated millions and millions of dollars in revenue. There are several articles out about it, including lawsuits that have occurred. It's strictly a revenue generating scheme for the city.

If they're just a revenue stream, then how did the lawsuits turn out?

It is currently in the Virginia Court of Appeals. It was dismissed initially by a city of Suffolk court (gee, wonder why).

Suffolk made $12.5 million in camera revenue in FY 2024 alone. It's a revenue stream.

The city of Suffolk has been the most egregious with work zone speed cameras in Virginia. They also have school zone speed cameras at most of their schools, and red light cameras at a large number of intersections, even smaller ones.

For speed cameras, they currently have two along US-58, one at the SPSA interchange project location that is lowered to 50 mph (not sure why the reduction from 60 mph, but the cameras sort of explain it), along with US-58 west of Suffolk.

US-460 north of Suffolk also had speed cameras for a small work zone recently, but have gone away since it was complete.

Suffolk has conveniently only used speed cameras on US-58 and US-460, which are the two major highways for through traffic leaving / entering the metro, but none on any local or arterial roads.

They even post signs at the city limits alerting that traffic laws are photo enforced. They have been extremely notorious for speed enforcement via cameras, and excessive with red light cameras citywide, since the speed camera laws were passed a few years back. They have generated millions and millions of dollars in revenue. There are several articles out about it, including lawsuits that have occurred. It's strictly a revenue generating scheme for the city.

If they're just a revenue stream, then how did the lawsuits turn out?

It is currently in the Virginia Court of Appeals. It was dismissed initially by a city of Suffolk court (gee, wonder why).

Suffolk made $12.5 million in camera revenue in FY 2024 alone. It's a revenue stream.

Heh.  We'll see if the Courts agree with you.

Either way, doesn't change the fact it's a revenue stream. You're entitled to your own opinion, coming from New York.

[Rothman]

The city of Suffolk has been the most egregious with work zone speed cameras in Virginia. They also have school zone speed cameras at most of their schools, and red light cameras at a large number of intersections, even smaller ones.

For speed cameras, they currently have two along US-58, one at the SPSA interchange project location that is lowered to 50 mph (not sure why the reduction from 60 mph, but the cameras sort of explain it), along with US-58 west of Suffolk.

US-460 north of Suffolk also had speed cameras for a small work zone recently, but have gone away since it was complete.

Suffolk has conveniently only used speed cameras on US-58 and US-460, which are the two major highways for through traffic leaving / entering the metro, but none on any local or arterial roads.

They even post signs at the city limits alerting that traffic laws are photo enforced. They have been extremely notorious for speed enforcement via cameras, and excessive with red light cameras citywide, since the speed camera laws were passed a few years back. They have generated millions and millions of dollars in revenue. There are several articles out about it, including lawsuits that have occurred. It's strictly a revenue generating scheme for the city.

If they're just a revenue stream, then how did the lawsuits turn out?

It is currently in the Virginia Court of Appeals. It was dismissed initially by a city of Suffolk court (gee, wonder why).

Suffolk made $12.5 million in camera revenue in FY 2024 alone. It's a revenue stream.

The city of Suffolk has been the most egregious with work zone speed cameras in Virginia. They also have school zone speed cameras at most of their schools, and red light cameras at a large number of intersections, even smaller ones.

For speed cameras, they currently have two along US-58, one at the SPSA interchange project location that is lowered to 50 mph (not sure why the reduction from 60 mph, but the cameras sort of explain it), along with US-58 west of Suffolk.

US-460 north of Suffolk also had speed cameras for a small work zone recently, but have gone away since it was complete.

Suffolk has conveniently only used speed cameras on US-58 and US-460, which are the two major highways for through traffic leaving / entering the metro, but none on any local or arterial roads.

They even post signs at the city limits alerting that traffic laws are photo enforced. They have been extremely notorious for speed enforcement via cameras, and excessive with red light cameras citywide, since the speed camera laws were passed a few years back. They have generated millions and millions of dollars in revenue. There are several articles out about it, including lawsuits that have occurred. It's strictly a revenue generating scheme for the city.

If they're just a revenue stream, then how did the lawsuits turn out?

It is currently in the Virginia Court of Appeals. It was dismissed initially by a city of Suffolk court (gee, wonder why).

Suffolk made $12.5 million in camera revenue in FY 2024 alone. It's a revenue stream.

Heh.  We'll see if the Courts agree with you.

Either way, doesn't change the fact it's a revenue stream. You're entitled to your own opinion, coming from New York.

Sure, but you seemed to be arguing that was the only benefit and the lawsuits should find the program unwarranted.

(And, psst, I lived in Falls Church for a while)

[sprjus4]

Sure, but you seemed to be arguing that was the only benefit and the lawsuits should find the program unwarranted.

When a work zone was posted at 60 mph for several months suddenly is reduced to 50 mph (with no changes in roadway geometry, lane shifts, etc.) along with cameras installed, it sure makes you question things.

That, along with their $12+ million annually raised from the program, reallyyyyy makes you question things.

Also, why are cameras only posted along US-58 work zones? There's several ongoing throughout the city. But only the major highway in and out of the metro? These speeding "issues" only have recently arisen due to speed limits being lowered well below what they should be.

[Rothman]

Sure, but you seemed to be arguing that was the only benefit and the lawsuits should find the program unwarranted.

When a work zone was posted at 60 mph for several months suddenly is reduced to 50 mph (with no changes in roadway geometry, lane shifts, etc.) along with cameras installed, it sure makes you question things.

That, along with their $12+ million annually raised from the program, reallyyyyy makes you question things.

Also, why are cameras only posted along US-58 work zones? There's several ongoing throughout the city. But only the major highway in and out of the metro? These speeding "issues" only have recently arisen due to speed limits being lowered well below what they should be.

Right.  Let's see if the courts agree with your assessment.