what's with local pols opposing expanding 270 and 495?

[Anonymous]

I’m in Rockville and people here are mostly against the widening (including the city council). I’m not necessarily against widening roads but this plan is ridiculous. There’s a few miles where 270 is 12 lanes across. After that if quickly loses lanes until it’s four. Instead of working on making it 12 lanes all the way to Frederick (or even 8 without the frontage road) they want to make the part that’s already widest into 16 lanes. I don’t get it. Whatever though, build out toll roads. I could then go all the way from my house into VA and onto 95S taking tolls the entire way and avoid sitting in beach traffic on my way to my beach vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m in Rockville and people here are mostly against the widening (including the city council). I’m not necessarily against widening roads but this plan is ridiculous. There’s a few miles where 270 is 12 lanes across. After that if quickly loses lanes until it’s four. Instead of working on making it 12 lanes all the way to Frederick (or even 8 without the frontage road) they want to make the part that’s already widest into 16 lanes. I don’t get it. Whatever though, build out toll roads. I could then go all the way from my house into VA and onto 95S taking tolls the entire way and avoid sitting in beach traffic on my way to my beach vacation.

So why are they also against the HOT lanes on the bridge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually yes. You need to calculate what you believe the derived subsidy is to driving from these things you identified and compare to transit. For example, wouldn’t rail lines and cars benefit from steel subsidies too? What are the related environmental subsidies related to the electricity generation that run Metro? For example, there are LCO peaking power plants, so oil subsidies also apply too.

It’s not clear to me that you have actually analyzed this is a systematic way.

Stop arguing with random anonymous people on the internet and go read the actual studies - assuming your goal is learning. If your goal is arguing with random anonymous people on the internet, keep doing what you're doing.

I’m sorry for you that you have not thought through your examples very well.

DP. As PP said, go read the studies if you're interested in learning. I suspect you will not, however, because they arrive at different conclusions than you do. But please do keep us apprised, lest we spill any more digital ink indulging your desire to be argumentative.

Can you provide a link? I would be interested to read these studies. The only studies I have read show that comparable economic multipliers for roads is substantially larger than mass transit.

Still waiting on that link. It’s getting late, but I wanted to follow your suggestion and read up on this issue more but you have not even provided a citation I can look up? Anything useful would be appreciated and hopefully it provides the side-by-side direct comparison, which would be great to see. Thanks in advance!

Looks like I’m going to have to give up on this. It’s unfortunate because I was actually interested.

Bottom line is that both cars and mass transit have hidden subsidies. Which has worse subsidies and by how much is unresolved at the moment due to this person failing to provide a citation. However, there is undisputed evidence that the economic multipliers for roads are higher for mass transit which they produce higher economic benefits.

[Anonymous]

Rich Parsons, is that you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rich Parsons, is that you?

It’s so bizarre and revealing when people do stuff like this. There is somehow an insider club of local curmudgeons that know each other but prefer to argue anonymously here.

As hard as it is for you because to believe, road improvements are very popular and expanding the bridge is very popular. The minority opinion is to do nothing and scream at people to move if they don’t like it.