Widening 355 in MoCo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so sad to see otherwise smart people be so dumb about planning and transportation.

I remember when 270 was 2 lanes in each direction. For 45 years, the county has expanded the number of lanes, the local lanes, the X crossover exchanges, and yet, we still have a lot of bumper to bumper car traffic with corresponding dirty air and health impacts.

Time to do something else, what has been happening since the 1970's clearly isn't working.

Ah, but part of that is due to the bottleneck when the lanes go back down to 2 past Germantown.

What "something else" do you propose? Just let it keep getting worse until the highways around here are as bad as I-95 in CT?

There are plenty of places in the US that after expanding roads to their natural limit then used freeway medians for transit systems later (with abundant parking). That is the way of places that want to be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so sad to see otherwise smart people be so dumb about planning and transportation.

I remember when 270 was 2 lanes in each direction. For 45 years, the county has expanded the number of lanes, the local lanes, the X crossover exchanges, and yet, we still have a lot of bumper to bumper car traffic with corresponding dirty air and health impacts.

Time to do something else, what has been happening since the 1970's clearly isn't working.

Whatever the question, the answer is always: more roads. Traffic congested? Widen the highway! Traffic not congested? Widen the highway! It's amazing, in a really depressing way.

Should the answer be less roads? Is zero roads the ideal number? Do you believe that Star Trek style teleportation is real?

The answer is, building and widening roads doesn't lead to better traffic flow. If the goal is moving people efficiently, then single occupancy cars is the least efficient manner possible. Just about anything - mass transit, bikes, whatever, is a better use of time, space and money.

Do you have an example of a suburban county in the US realizing your goal absent the economic growth facilitated by cars on roads?

DP. Since basically every suburban county has gone all-in on the build-roads-for-cars strategy, there are no examples of counties that haven't done that.

So the answer is no? Got it. Thanks.

Correct. There are no examples demonstrating the success or failure of an approach that none of the counties have tried. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples demonstrating the failure of the roads-for-cars approach that all of the counties have tried.

Let’s take a step back here and recognize that you are advocating something that you admit that “no one else has tried” and yet you expect that countries and governments will follow your advice because….?

Not too dissimilar from the communists in college who swore up and down that communism works, except that it has never been tried before. Okay, sure.

None of the counties in the US have tried it. That only leaves the whole rest of the world.

Name a place in the “rest of the world” that developed cities and economically grew in the 20th century that followed a different model. Just one country. I’ll wait.

In the meantime, the fastest growing cities and counties in our region and America writ large are engaging doing the exact opposite of what you propose while the ones that have started down that path are now economically struggling. Really speaks for itself.

The experience of places in the US that are current and prior successful growth in this country is that roads are important for economic growth and transit can easily be added later, where it is needed. No one has successfully grown without roads, which just makes basic friggin’ economic sense predating the automobile all the way back to Rome. Imagine the Romans following your advice and saying sorry, since your cart filled with agricultural products going to the market only has one passenger you cannot use the road.

When you reduce it to the basics, you philosophy is economically illiterate and just silly.

Imagine thinking that roads are only for cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so sad to see otherwise smart people be so dumb about planning and transportation.

I remember when 270 was 2 lanes in each direction. For 45 years, the county has expanded the number of lanes, the local lanes, the X crossover exchanges, and yet, we still have a lot of bumper to bumper car traffic with corresponding dirty air and health impacts.

Time to do something else, what has been happening since the 1970's clearly isn't working.

Whatever the question, the answer is always: more roads. Traffic congested? Widen the highway! Traffic not congested? Widen the highway! It's amazing, in a really depressing way.

Should the answer be less roads? Is zero roads the ideal number? Do you believe that Star Trek style teleportation is real?

The answer is, building and widening roads doesn't lead to better traffic flow. If the goal is moving people efficiently, then single occupancy cars is the least efficient manner possible. Just about anything - mass transit, bikes, whatever, is a better use of time, space and money.

Do you have an example of a suburban county in the US realizing your goal absent the economic growth facilitated by cars on roads?

DP. Since basically every suburban county has gone all-in on the build-roads-for-cars strategy, there are no examples of counties that haven't done that.

So the answer is no? Got it. Thanks.

Correct. There are no examples demonstrating the success or failure of an approach that none of the counties have tried. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples demonstrating the failure of the roads-for-cars approach that all of the counties have tried.

Let’s take a step back here and recognize that you are advocating something that you admit that “no one else has tried” and yet you expect that countries and governments will follow your advice because….?

Not too dissimilar from the communists in college who swore up and down that communism works, except that it has never been tried before. Okay, sure.

None of the counties in the US have tried it. That only leaves the whole rest of the world.

Name a place in the “rest of the world” that developed cities and economically grew in the 20th century that followed a different model. Just one country. I’ll wait.

In the meantime, the fastest growing cities and counties in our region and America writ large are engaging doing the exact opposite of what you propose while the ones that have started down that path are now economically struggling. Really speaks for itself.

The experience of places in the US that are current and prior successful growth in this country is that roads are important for economic growth and transit can easily be added later, where it is needed. No one has successfully grown without roads, which just makes basic friggin’ economic sense predating the automobile all the way back to Rome. Imagine the Romans following your advice and saying sorry, since your cart filled with agricultural products going to the market only has one passenger you cannot use the road.

When you reduce it to the basics, you philosophy is economically illiterate and just silly.

Imagine thinking that roads are only for cars.

Imagine thinking that time costs inefficient use of public infrastructure is good for the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so sad to see otherwise smart people be so dumb about planning and transportation.

I remember when 270 was 2 lanes in each direction. For 45 years, the county has expanded the number of lanes, the local lanes, the X crossover exchanges, and yet, we still have a lot of bumper to bumper car traffic with corresponding dirty air and health impacts.

Time to do something else, what has been happening since the 1970's clearly isn't working.

Whatever the question, the answer is always: more roads. Traffic congested? Widen the highway! Traffic not congested? Widen the highway! It's amazing, in a really depressing way.

Should the answer be less roads? Is zero roads the ideal number? Do you believe that Star Trek style teleportation is real?

The answer is, building and widening roads doesn't lead to better traffic flow. If the goal is moving people efficiently, then single occupancy cars is the least efficient manner possible. Just about anything - mass transit, bikes, whatever, is a better use of time, space and money.

Do you have an example of a suburban county in the US realizing your goal absent the economic growth facilitated by cars on roads?

DP. Since basically every suburban county has gone all-in on the build-roads-for-cars strategy, there are no examples of counties that haven't done that.

So the answer is no? Got it. Thanks.

Correct. There are no examples demonstrating the success or failure of an approach that none of the counties have tried. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples demonstrating the failure of the roads-for-cars approach that all of the counties have tried.

Let’s take a step back here and recognize that you are advocating something that you admit that “no one else has tried” and yet you expect that countries and governments will follow your advice because….?

Not too dissimilar from the communists in college who swore up and down that communism works, except that it has never been tried before. Okay, sure.

None of the counties in the US have tried it. That only leaves the whole rest of the world.

Name a place in the “rest of the world” that developed cities and economically grew in the 20th century that followed a different model. Just one country. I’ll wait.

In the meantime, the fastest growing cities and counties in our region and America writ large are engaging doing the exact opposite of what you propose while the ones that have started down that path are now economically struggling. Really speaks for itself.

The experience of places in the US that are current and prior successful growth in this country is that roads are important for economic growth and transit can easily be added later, where it is needed. No one has successfully grown without roads, which just makes basic friggin’ economic sense predating the automobile all the way back to Rome. Imagine the Romans following your advice and saying sorry, since your cart filled with agricultural products going to the market only has one passenger you cannot use the road.

When you reduce it to the basics, you philosophy is economically illiterate and just silly.

Imagine thinking that roads are only for cars.

Imagine thinking that time costs inefficient use of public infrastructure is good for the economy.

Inefficiency is transporting yourself in a 2-3 ton personal vehicle, on roads where the more people make the same choices as you, the worse the system works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This road needs to be widened with another lane in each direction. It needs to be limited access so we can have interchanges. It will do wonders for the traffic in the area.

Wonders for the traffic in the area? I can't think that is a MoCo goal these days.
Have you seen Old Georgetown Road lately?
It is more likely that bike lanes come to 355, than widen it for the car traffic.

[Anonymous]

If they widden 335, I do hope some consideration goes into adding dedicated, bike lanes and ped lanes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This road needs to be widened with another lane in each direction. It needs to be limited access so we can have interchanges. It will do wonders for the traffic in the area.

Wonders for the traffic in the area? I can't think that is a MoCo goal these days.
Have you seen Old Georgetown Road lately?
It is more likely that bike lanes come to 355, than widen it for the car traffic.

Improved bus service/bus routes are going to come to 355, in bus-only lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This road needs to be widened with another lane in each direction. It needs to be limited access so we can have interchanges. It will do wonders for the traffic in the area.

Wonders for the traffic in the area? I can't think that is a MoCo goal these days.
Have you seen Old Georgetown Road lately?
It is more likely that bike lanes come to 355, than widen it for the car traffic.

Improved bus service/bus routes are going to come to 355, in bus-only lanes.

Which can only happen if 270 is widened. You folks are lack logical sensibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This road needs to be widened with another lane in each direction. It needs to be limited access so we can have interchanges. It will do wonders for the traffic in the area.

Wonders for the traffic in the area? I can't think that is a MoCo goal these days.
Have you seen Old Georgetown Road lately?
It is more likely that bike lanes come to 355, than widen it for the car traffic.

Improved bus service/bus routes are going to come to 355, in bus-only lanes.

Which can only happen if 270 is widened. You folks are lack logical sensibility.

No, it's a completely separate plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This road needs to be widened with another lane in each direction. It needs to be limited access so we can have interchanges. It will do wonders for the traffic in the area.

Wonders for the traffic in the area? I can't think that is a MoCo goal these days.
Have you seen Old Georgetown Road lately?
It is more likely that bike lanes come to 355, than widen it for the car traffic.

Improved bus service/bus routes are going to come to 355, in bus-only lanes.

How has ridership been on the BRT in east county? What about the flash that currently runs on 355?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This road needs to be widened with another lane in each direction. It needs to be limited access so we can have interchanges. It will do wonders for the traffic in the area.

Wonders for the traffic in the area? I can't think that is a MoCo goal these days.
Have you seen Old Georgetown Road lately?
It is more likely that bike lanes come to 355, than widen it for the car traffic.

Improved bus service/bus routes are going to come to 355, in bus-only lanes.

How has ridership been on the BRT in east county? What about the flash that currently runs on 355?

You know it’s been awful, otherwise they would constantly talk about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This road needs to be widened with another lane in each direction. It needs to be limited access so we can have interchanges. It will do wonders for the traffic in the area.

Wonders for the traffic in the area? I can't think that is a MoCo goal these days.
Have you seen Old Georgetown Road lately?
It is more likely that bike lanes come to 355, than widen it for the car traffic.

Improved bus service/bus routes are going to come to 355, in bus-only lanes.

How has ridership been on the BRT in east county? What about the flash that currently runs on 355?

The FLASH runs on US 29. About 40% of the route is on bus-only lanes (the shoulder, not the median). The whole route needs to run in on bus-only lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This road needs to be widened with another lane in each direction. It needs to be limited access so we can have interchanges. It will do wonders for the traffic in the area.

Wonders for the traffic in the area? I can't think that is a MoCo goal these days.
Have you seen Old Georgetown Road lately?
It is more likely that bike lanes come to 355, than widen it for the car traffic.

Improved bus service/bus routes are going to come to 355, in bus-only lanes.

How has ridership been on the BRT in east county? What about the flash that currently runs on 355?

The FLASH runs on US 29. About 40% of the route is on bus-only lanes (the shoulder, not the median). The whole route needs to run in on bus-only lanes.

Always excuses. Sounds like socialists complaining that its failed everywhere it’s never truly been tried yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This road needs to be widened with another lane in each direction. It needs to be limited access so we can have interchanges. It will do wonders for the traffic in the area.

Wonders for the traffic in the area? I can't think that is a MoCo goal these days.
Have you seen Old Georgetown Road lately?
It is more likely that bike lanes come to 355, than widen it for the car traffic.

Improved bus service/bus routes are going to come to 355, in bus-only lanes.

How has ridership been on the BRT in east county? What about the flash that currently runs on 355?

The FLASH runs on US 29. About 40% of the route is on bus-only lanes (the shoulder, not the median). The whole route needs to run in on bus-only lanes.

Always excuses. Sounds like socialists complaining that its failed everywhere it’s never truly been tried yet.

Excuses for what?

Plus didn't you mean to say communists, not socialists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so sad to see otherwise smart people be so dumb about planning and transportation.

I remember when 270 was 2 lanes in each direction. For 45 years, the county has expanded the number of lanes, the local lanes, the X crossover exchanges, and yet, we still have a lot of bumper to bumper car traffic with corresponding dirty air and health impacts.

Time to do something else, what has been happening since the 1970's clearly isn't working.

Ah, but part of that is due to the bottleneck when the lanes go back down to 2 past Germantown.

What "something else" do you propose? Just let it keep getting worse until the highways around here are as bad as I-95 in CT?

This is where we say: transit and other ways to get around without a car, plus land use to enable it. And then you say: no, roads for cars.

Most of us just want to get to where we need to go. The problem is that suburbs were largely built around car transportation. Expanding public transport to serve all neighborhoods in a way that is efficient enough to meaningfully reduce the number of cars on the road would be very expensive. I metro to work, but I end up driving to the station because I need to drop one kid at daycare and the other at before care and its all too far apart to walk. DH does not have a logical public transport option to work (would involve a long metro ride on two lines and an infrequent bus). But his commute around the beltway takes longer and longer in the afternoon and there's no solution in sight.

The most "walkable" communities are often the most expensive, which is another reason why people end up living further and further out.