Virginia

[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.

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

Well, that's not what the court is looking at. So that's irrelevant.

The fact the cameras are a revenue generating machine, is indeed a fact. They brought in $12.5 million from cameras in FY 2024. That is, in fact, revenue.

[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.

Well, that's not what the court is looking at. So that's irrelevant.

The fact the cameras are a revenue generating machine, is indeed a fact. They brought in $12.5 million from cameras in FY 2024. That is, in fact, revenue.

At this point, I don't know what your point is.

[Beltway]

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.

That was a pain in the rear end. That is the route I usually took from Richmond to Centerville for classes. Maybe as low as 35 would be ok, but an urban 25 limit in a semi-rural area?

That $12.5 million sounds rather questionable -- that is about 700 tickets per day.

More data on the Huguenot High School / Forest Hill Avenue school zone speed cameras that I got nailed at a year ago --

They have one VMS for the speed limit each way and about 1/4 mile from the cameras.
Eastbound -- there are 4 entrances between the sign and the cameras.
Westbound -- there are 8 entrances between the sign and the cameras.

Those are the only speed VMS on the segment. Speed limit is 35 normally and 25 when school is in session for I think 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon.

The entrances include a several public roads, several businesses and several driveways.

So this means that someone entering the road from one of those entrances will not see any speed VMS before reaching the cameras.

This is a bogus and corrupt installation because many people will enter the segment and not know about the speed reduction.

I need to confront my city councilperson about this and demand that they either sign it fully or remove the installation.

[Scott5114]

Any per mile metric is flawed given the sheer mileage of toll roads in states like NY, NJ, PA, FL, OH, IN and OK.

Eh, not exactly. Oklahoma has a concept called "cross-pledging" where all of the revenue from all of the toll roads goes to the same pot, and is distributed to pay off whatever bonds are outstanding irrespective of which turnpike was built or improved with them. Meaning that drivers on the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes (which have the highest traffic counts, and have had their construction bonds paid off for decades) are subsidizing the newer (like the Kickapoo) and less-used (like the Cherokee) turnpikes. So in Oklahoma's case, it has a low per-mile cost because it has had so many miles of turnpike for so long.

[Beltway]

Any per mile metric is flawed given the sheer mileage of toll roads in states like NY, NJ, PA, FL, OH, IN and OK.

Eh, not exactly. Oklahoma has a concept called "cross-pledging" where all of the revenue from all of the toll roads goes to the same pot, and is distributed to pay off whatever bonds are outstanding irrespective of which turnpike was built or improved with them. Meaning that drivers on the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes (which have the highest traffic counts, and have had their construction bonds paid off for decades) are subsidizing the newer (like the Kickapoo) and less-used (like the Cherokee) turnpikes. So in Oklahoma's case, it has a low per-mile cost because it has had so many miles of turnpike for so long.

The 1950s/1960s turnpikes (Turner, Rogers, Bailey) have just recently been allocated widening projects, after almost none before. So things are changing.

The Turner, Will Rogers, and H.E. Bailey turnpikes in Oklahoma, built in the 1950s/1960s, are part of the ACCESS Oklahoma plan, announced in 2022 by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. This $8.2 billion initiative includes widening these turnpikes to six lanes, adding interchanges, and upgrading bridges, with $2.5 billion allocated for the Turner alone. Toll increases effective January 2025 fund the projects, with some segments starting in 2024 and continuing over a decade. OTA is funding this $8.2 billion initiative primarily through issuance of new toll revenue bonds, supplemented by toll increases.

The toll for cars (2-axle vehicles) on the Turner Turnpike, traveling the full length from Oklahoma City to Tulsa (approximately 88 miles), as of January 1, 2025, is $5.40 with a PIKEPASS and $10.50 with PlatePay, per the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) and turnpikeinfo.com.

They don't take EZPass -- so that is 11.9 cents per mile for someone that doesn't have their Pikepass.

That is not inexpensive -- that is similar to the PA Turnpike and others like them that have 200+ miles of turnpikes.

[sprjus4]

They don't take EZPass -- so that is 11.9 cents per mile for someone that doesn't have their Pikepass.

That is not inexpensive -- that is similar to the PA Turnpike and others like them that have 200+ miles of turnpikes.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike charges 34 cents per mile for pay by plate.

Oklahoma charges 11.9 cents per mile for pay by plate.

Big difference.

[Beltway]

They don't take EZPass -- so that is 11.9 cents per mile for someone that doesn't have their Pikepass.
That is not inexpensive -- that is similar to the PA Turnpike and others like them that have 200+ miles of turnpikes.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike charges 34 cents per mile for pay by plate.
Oklahoma charges 11.9 cents per mile for pay by plate.
Big difference.

Your EZPass will work on nearly every system -- but not OTA.

Actually 16 cents per mile EZPass for the entire 360-mile east-west turnpike -- not that big of a difference -- and they have by my latest data 125 miles of 6-lane widening completed, 18 miles under construction and 81 miles in final design.

States I have used EZPass on -- FL, VA, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, WV, OH, IN, IL.

NC has it but I have not used it yet. AFAIK all NE states have it.