AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Virginia  (Read 729800 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4200 on: July 11, 2019, 04:41:17 PM »

Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments?
MM 8.1 to MM 9.7 - 1.6 miles
MM 116.2 to MM 141.8 - 25.6 miles
MM 144.2 to MM 151.3 - 7.1 miles
MM 221.8 to MM 225.3 - 3.5 miles
MM 242.2 to MM 248.1 - 5.9 miles
MM 295.7 to MM 299.2 - 3.5 miles
MM 313.8 to MM 317.5 - 3.7 miles

So in total, 50.9 miles.

Both directions?
I believe so.

There's other projects in there I did not list like "Add auxiliary lane between Exit 221 and Exit 220", etc.

I strictly listed the ones that said "Widen to three lanes", then the mile markers.

There's also additional projects that would add truck climbing lanes, though those would likely only be in one direction. I did not list those above. Here those are -

- MM 32.3 to MM 33.5
- MM 39.9 to MM 40.6
- MM 33.0 to MM 34.0
- MM 233.3 to MM 237.4
- MM 234.6 to MM 236.5

The mile markers overlapping is likely a result of one being in one direction, and one in the other.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 04:45:08 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4201 on: July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM »

I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.

I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 

The I-395 HOT lanes will open in the next year, and that will cause the HOT traffic to grow even more on I-95.

The I-495 HOT lanes extension to the GW Parkway, and to I-270, will take longer, but they are in the same time frame as the 10 miles of widening south of VA-123.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4202 on: July 11, 2019, 09:50:40 PM »

that will cause the HOT traffic to grow even more on I-95.
How? The lanes already exist. And could you provide a source for this data?

as the 10 miles of widening south of VA-123.
What?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 09:57:01 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4203 on: July 11, 2019, 09:54:30 PM »

A 4th toll lane each way absolutely would be well utilized if it existed.
Source?

So the state conducts a study to find an effective mix of federal and state funds, taxation districts, toll revenue bonds, P3 equity, etc. and combinations thereof, to fund this project with appropriate tolls.
They did the same study on I-64... indicated over $1 billion in needed improvements.

They studied an ETL or HO/T lane option for the third lane. It was removed from further study and the selected alternative was general purpose widening for about 51 miles.

About 30 miles is needed between VA-123 and Fredericksburg. A study on the I-95 corridor would also likely eliminate tolling from further study, and quite rightfully so. It's a waste IMO and I felt the same way about I-64's proposals. I'm glad VDOT was smart and eliminated it as common sense kicked in.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 09:57:22 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4204 on: July 11, 2019, 10:10:14 PM »

that will cause the HOT traffic to grow even more on I-95.
How? The lanes already exist. And could you provide a source for this data?
You need to stop your creative snipping.  I was referring to the 3-lane widening on the I-395 reversible roadway and its conversion to HOT in 2020.  Do you think it is -not- going to increase the traffic on the I-95 HOT lanes, with the Shirley Highway HOT extension into Washington?

A 4th toll lane each way absolutely would be well utilized if it existed.
Source?
Common sense, a 6-lane freeway that carries over 100,000 VPD at the minimum, and it would depend on the level of the toll.

Like it I said, it needs to be -studied- and considered, and if they demonstrate the feasibility they can build it, if not feasible they can delete it.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4205 on: July 11, 2019, 10:20:50 PM »

You need to stop your creative snipping.
The hypocrisy  :poke:

I was referring to the 3-lane widening on the I-395 reversible roadway and its conversion to HOT in 2020. Do you think it is -not- going to increase the traffic on the I-95 HOT lanes
I-395 is not I-95.

I-395 traffic will increase because SOV will be permitted via a toll. I-95 is already 3-lanes in the HO/T lanes and is available to SOV for a toll. I don't see how I-95 traffic will increase if it's the same people using it.

Common sense, a 6-lane freeway that carries over 100,000 VPD at the minimum
Said freeway should have 8 GP lanes before we start discussing toll lanes.

Like it I said, it needs to be -studied- and considered, and if they demonstrate the feasibility they can build it, if not feasible they can delete it.
If I-64 is any indication, it will be studied then deleted.
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 410
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 08:46:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4206 on: July 11, 2019, 11:26:10 PM »

I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.

I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 

Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4207 on: July 11, 2019, 11:29:01 PM »

I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.

I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 

Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
I agree. I-95 was widened to 8-lanes between VA-123 and I-495 right before Transurban came in. Now there's not really been any peep from VDOT about continuing 8-lanes south. The localities and jurisdictions want that 4th FREE lane each way, but no official talks of it happening.

By now, I-95 should naturally be 8-lanes down to Fredericksburg given the traffic counts and is long overdue to be on at least a study. But all we see are interchange improvements and other spot improvements.
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 410
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 08:46:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4208 on: July 11, 2019, 11:29:38 PM »

The I-495 HOT lanes extension to the GW Parkway, and to I-270, will take longer, but they are in the same time frame as the 10 miles of widening south of VA-123.
^um some clarification here?
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4209 on: July 11, 2019, 11:30:42 PM »

VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95)
It's quite sad Virginia would even make such a deal - to allow a private company to have control over something like that.
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 410
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 08:46:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4210 on: July 11, 2019, 11:38:40 PM »

VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95)
It's quite sad Virginia would even make such a deal - to allow a private company to have control over something like that.

Yes on I-95 its been nothing but an absolute disaster. Glad they learned their lesson and made the I-66 deal far better. For Maryland and their future P3 Express lane deals, this is a perfect example of what to do and what not to.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4211 on: July 11, 2019, 11:45:01 PM »

Yes on I-95 its been nothing but an absolute disaster.
If anything it was just a way for Virginia to let someone else deal with their problems. And it still hasn't done much.

The condition that I-95 is in is unacceptable IMO.

And it's not like VDOT or anybody really cares. You can hem and haw all day long about how its expensive, but the fact no formal EIS or location study has been conducted says it. The only reason the little corridor study is happening now is because legislators in Richmond directed the CTB to conduct such a study. It likely will not provide us with much. This is not a full EIS as it should have been 10 years ago.

NCDOT has over 100 miles of interstate highway widening projects underway or fully funded for the next 5-6 years, including 45 miles on I-95. That's progress. And you can't pull out the little "they don't have water or mountain obstacles (which is complete bogus for the record) like VA does" card because 95% of the widenings needed in Virginia is not water or mountainous. Rural stretches of I-95 that carry 60,000 AADT in North Carolina will be 8-lanes while North Virginia will continue to have urban stretches with 150,000 - 200,000 AADT that are only 6-lanes.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 11:52:50 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4212 on: July 12, 2019, 12:03:44 AM »

I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.
I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 
Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.

Can you show me in the contract where it says that VDOT cannot "add competitive capacity to I-95"?

I am really getting tired of these kind of claims that never define exactly what would happen if VDOT added a lane each way to this segment.

It is a $400 million project for 8 miles and while it would help some it would not exactly "open the pearly gates".
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4213 on: July 12, 2019, 12:06:09 AM »

North Carolina will be

I don't give a rip about that state, as should be obvious long ago.  I don't travel there.
If you love it so much then go live there.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 410
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 08:46:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4214 on: July 12, 2019, 12:06:51 AM »

NCDOT has over 100 miles of interstate highway widening projects underway or fully funded for the next 5-6 years, including 45 miles on I-95. That's progress.

A big reason for that is because NC taxes more for transportation correct? Regardless, its at least progress for Virginia that the new dedicated interstate improvements tax was passed and will hopefully speed up many of the desperately needed interstate widenings that you mentioned up thread across the state.
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 410
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 08:46:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4215 on: July 12, 2019, 12:19:09 AM »

I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.
I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 
Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
I am really getting tired of these kind of claims that never define exactly what would happen if VDOT added a lane each way to this segment.

That is because NOBODY exactly knows. All I'm saying is that by continuing to do nothing, VDOT obviously thinks it'll be bad enough to where it won't be worth their time to further pursue. Since you don't believe the compensation event is a problem, what do you believe is the "real" reason for why VDOT has not considered doing any GP lane widening south of VA-123?
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12494
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:54:56 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4216 on: July 12, 2019, 12:25:14 AM »

North Carolina will be

I don't give a rip about that state, as should be obvious long ago.  I don't travel there.
If you love it so much then go live there.
You need to stop your creative snipping.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4217 on: July 12, 2019, 12:27:48 AM »

I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.
I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 
Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
I am really getting tired of these kind of claims that never define exactly what would happen if VDOT added a lane each way to this segment.
That is because NOBODY exactly knows. All I'm saying is that by continuing to do nothing, VDOT obviously thinks it'll be bad enough to where it won't be worth their time to further pursue. Since you don't believe the compensation event is a problem, what do you believe is the "real" reason for why VDOT has not considered doing any GP lane widening south of VA-123?

You snipped what I said:
It is a $400 million project for 8 miles and while it would help some it would not exactly "open the pearly gates".

IOW adding 1 lane to 3 for that cost and length is not necessarily a very cost effective project compared to all the other needs.

I'm not saying that a compensation event is not a problem, but I am tired of hearing about it when nobody has provided any estimate of what it would be, and I was not impressed by the letter from the NoVA District Administrator.  Nobody has officially documented that it would be so high that it would not be affordable.  Until someone does that then all I am hearing is a lot of hot air.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 410
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 08:46:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4218 on: July 12, 2019, 12:55:33 AM »

I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.
I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 
Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
I am really getting tired of these kind of claims that never define exactly what would happen if VDOT added a lane each way to this segment.
That is because NOBODY exactly knows. All I'm saying is that by continuing to do nothing, VDOT obviously thinks it'll be bad enough to where it won't be worth their time to further pursue. Since you don't believe the compensation event is a problem, what do you believe is the "real" reason for why VDOT has not considered doing any GP lane widening south of VA-123?

You snipped what I said:
It is a $400 million project for 8 miles and while it would help some it would not exactly "open the pearly gates".

IOW adding 1 lane to 3 for that cost and length is not necessarily a very cost effective project compared to all the other needs.

I'm not saying that a compensation event is not a problem, but I am tired of hearing about it when nobody has provided any estimate of what it would be, and I was not impressed by the letter from the NoVA District Administrator.  Nobody has officially documented that it would be so high that it would not be affordable.  Until someone does that then all I am hearing is a lot of hot air.

I am annoyed that at the very least, before deciding not to move forward, VDOT could've found out what the compensation event would be as a result of that specific project ( widening I-95 to Dumfries). One would think that figuring that out would not be very complicated but idk maybe extensive negotiations and more would be required.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4219 on: July 12, 2019, 01:12:44 AM »

IOW adding 1 lane to 3 for that cost and length is not necessarily a very cost effective project
Easy for someone who always travels in the HO/T lanes to say.

Itís a high priority and a very effective project for those of us who donít want to pay $20 to bypass rush hour traffic when VDOT sits around doing nothing to improve the GP lanes excepting reaching out to Transurban asking for more HO/T lanes and extensions.

If you donít experience the GP traffic first hand and deal with it, you donít have room to say itís not an effective project. You chose to pay your way out of it, so you canít make these claims.

compared to all the other needs.
What, those privately funded HO/T lanes you advocate for and love so much?
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4220 on: July 12, 2019, 01:14:27 AM »

I am annoyed that at the very least, before deciding not to move forward, VDOT could've found out what the compensation event would be as a result of that specific project ( widening I-95 to Dumfries). One would think that figuring that out would not be very complicated but idk maybe extensive negotiations and more would be required.
Itís because they have no real interest in pursuing GP widening. Just more HO/T lanes so they arenít actually having to do any work, and so those who want to pay their way out of congestion can fly right on through.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4221 on: July 12, 2019, 01:19:21 AM »

I don't give a rip about that state, as should be obvious long ago.
Doesnít matter if you donít like it, fact is they are doing more than Virginia is when it comes to highway expansions and freeway construction -outside of Hampton Roads which is in a special tax district-.

If you love it so much then go live there.
Iím close enough, itís only 10 minutes away. Two high-quality four-lane highways and eventually an interstate highway to connect.
Logged

VTGoose

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 263
  • Age: 2014
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 10:56:59 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4222 on: July 12, 2019, 08:47:33 AM »

Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments?

MM 116.2 to MM 141.8 - 25.6 miles

So in total, 50.9 miles.

Both directions?
I believe so.

There's other projects in there I did not list like "Add auxiliary lane between Exit 221 and Exit 220", etc.

I strictly listed the ones that said "Widen to three lanes", then the mile markers.


This section covers the stretch between Christiansburg and Salem/Roanoke. It starts roughly where the C/D lanes for exit 118 (U.S. 11/460) end going south and ends at exit 141 (VA 419). There is a three-lane section going south, up Christiansburg Mountain, from Ironto (appox. MP 128) to exit 118 at Christiansburg. There is a desperate need for a third lane going down the mountain and from Ironto to Roanoke in both directions. This project will tie in with the already approved goofy project that will make the left entrance from I-581 going south a through lane to exit 141 and make the right lane an extended exit lane for VA 419.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4223 on: July 12, 2019, 09:03:08 AM »

IOW adding 1 lane to 3 for that cost and length [$400 million for 8 miles] is not necessarily a very cost effective project
Easy for someone who always travels in the HO/T lanes to say.
If you donít experience the GP traffic first hand and deal with it, you donít have room to say itís not an effective project. You chose to pay your way out of it, so you canít make these claims.

This is one of your silliest posts yet. 

How about all the times that I travel that section of I-95 and if I tried to use the HOT lanes I would be driving into oncoming traffic if the cops didn't catch me first?

How about reducing some of the pressure on the HOT lanes so that the tolls don't have to be so high to keep the HOT lanes from congesting in peak hours?
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5033
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:47 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4224 on: July 12, 2019, 09:08:00 AM »

I'm not saying that a compensation event is not a problem, but I am tired of hearing about it when nobody has provided any estimate of what it would be, and I was not impressed by the letter from the NoVA District Administrator.  Nobody has officially documented that it would be so high that it would not be affordable.  Until someone does that then all I am hearing is a lot of hot air.
I am annoyed that at the very least, before deciding not to move forward, VDOT could've found out what the compensation event would be as a result of that specific project ( widening I-95 to Dumfries). One would think that figuring that out would not be very complicated but idk maybe extensive negotiations and more would be required.

That is part of what I was referring to above.   There just doesn't seem to be much interest outside of some posters here about the project, when I search online I find a couple newspaper articles and that letter and that's it, not sure why there is not more interest.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.