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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
I have exactly 7 emails from WMATA in 2019 receiving notice of a refund because they didn’t meet their service guarantee, which means delays over 20 minutes. Service in 2019 was substantially improved from the prior 5 years. Track fires were common due to garbage build up on the third rail. When it was too hot they would have to inspect tracks for warping. Similar when it was too cold. The O&M failures were staggering. Let’s not sugar coat Metro’s history here.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about freeway and expansion and I’m all for it.

There is no project proposing a freeway. There is a project proposing toll lanes.

What are you talking about? There is a plan to widen the freeway. That plan initially called for toll lanes along the beltway from 95 to ALB and also up 270. Smart lawmakers in Princes Georges Co got those tolls removed. Dumb lawmakers in Montgomery County did not. Some might even support the tolls because there is a committed group of people in this county, which probably includes you, trying to ban cars. If Montgomery County lawmakers allow tolls and costs only for our residents, then I guarantee it will be an election issue. The road is getting widened no matter what. There will be a new bridge expanse.

And guess what? A second bridge is in the regional master plan so that will happen too. Enjoy.

Could you provide a link to that project, please?

No. This is stupid. Go read the paper. Whatever game you think you are playing you are playing it with yourself.

I do read the paper, which is why I know there is no such project. This is the only project there is: https://495-270-p3.com/environmental/alternatives/rpa/

After several months of continuous collaboration and listening to agency partners, public officials and stakeholders, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) have identified Alternative 9: Phase 1 South as the new Recommended Preferred Alternative (RPA) for the Managed Lanes Study (MLS). The new RPA focuses solely on building a new American Legion Bridge and delivering two high occupancy toll (HOT) managed lanes in each direction on Phase 1 South: American Legion Bridge I-270 to I-370 with no action at this time on I-495 east of the I-270 eastern spur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a recognition that

1. Widening highways for "congestion relief" only leads to more driving and more congestion
2. While also contributing to air pollution, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions
3. And dumping the additional cars on local roads that aren't any bigger
4. Plus the for-profit company that's supposedly going to build it will only make a profit if the "free" lanes stay backed up
5. Plus taxpayers have ended up on the hook for the projects that the for-profit company has built elsewhere
6. Plus it was unlikely to get federal approval anyway because there are alternatives that are less damaging to the environment

Other than that, though...

(And the solution to inadequate transit is to fund better and more transit.)

That makes no sense. People are going to commute regardless of whether they expand roads or not. And this area, the closer you get to DC, the more expensive it is, so people will continue moving away, especially with violent crime going up. Wishing it away isn't a sol;ution. Busses are not a solution. Metro isn't a solution. Even if they expanded metro to frederick and to Woodbridge, it still would make no difference as metro is unreliable at best. Dangerous at worse. What is the solution then?

Widening highways leads to increased traffic is pretty much a rule in road planning. There are outlier exceptions where this doesn't happen, but virtually every time you add roads you add drivers.

And if you don't widen it when it's already overburned you have gridlock. Sitting in traffic isn't going to save the planet. what is wrong with people?

This has been the MoCo/Maryland traffic planning mantra for almost the entire 30 years that I've lived here. There have been two new roads built during that time (Montrose Parkway and the ICC) pushed through during Republican administrations. The default strategy is to force people onto Metro or proposed rapid bus lines. (Note: that the ICC has greatly improved my life and the tolls keep the road from being flooded with cars.)

I totally support widening 270 because I live in Rockville (very close to 270) and we basically can't travel from one part of Rockville to another (or adjacent places like our church in Potomac) without being stuck in commuter traffic. But my city and county governments came out against the proposal with little public comment.

During this same period of time Virginia has widened highways and their economy is booming. It’s wild how backwards the situation is here. Politicians saying they want to promote economic growth but refuse to support the things that would actually help our economy to grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Presumably that "induced demand" was created by people who wanted to drive before but couldn't because of conditions. I happen to think that government that enables more people to be satisfied is good government.

I'm wondering what other areas you apply that philosophy to, because polls consistently show large margins of support for universal health care coverage, good transit options, and automatic voter registration for all eligible voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know they want everyone but them to take the bus, but it's not realistic. WMATA is woefully inadequate and dangerous. The bus isn't a viable option for many people especially if they have to work in another state. Having people sit in traffic isn't going to "save the planet" especially as more people move further out. They just don't expect to be in office when the consequences are full to see and traffic just gets far worse than the hell it currently is?

Can you name one example of a place or time when widening a street or adding a lane has resulted in better traffic flow for cars?

No?

Neither can anyone else.

It is time to go a different path on our transportation policy.

I've lived here my entire life. THey widened streets before they became insane due to high demand already in existance. When I was a kid, 270 was 4 lanes. Then they started widening it. Imagine if it was still only 4 lanes, do you think gridlock would be improved? This area is increasing in population, people are moving further out. THe metro only goes out so far, and the parts exist now are woeful.

If it were still only 4 lanes, then there would be a lot fewer people driving down 270 on it. Instead we spent an enormous amount of money to widen 270 in the 1990s, which was supposed to "solve" congestion for decades, and the lanes filled up again in just a few years. That's induced demand. And meanwhile that money wasn't spent on other things that would have permanently helped people get places, like extending Metro to Germantown.

No, it just means that longstanding projects that were planned in the 60s were delayed and delayed (and many, like the Outer Beltway were never built), so we are consistently way behind what is needed to meet population growth. Yeah, if you are building half the needed capacity then those will fill up fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I concur, it's cheaper to drive if you don't work downtown than take the metro. FOr example if I were to take public transit to my current job, it would take at least 2 hours each way, I'd pay the maximum fare both ways and pay the metro parking fee. Instead I drive on roads that are subsidized for your use, takes about 45 minutes each way, and there's free parking at work.someone paid for the parking, it just isn't you. It is most liklely me in the form of subsidies to your employer

IOW if you paid the actual costs for your commute, metro would be more cost effective.

Each Metro trip is VERY subsidized...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know they want everyone but them to take the bus, but it's not realistic. WMATA is woefully inadequate and dangerous. The bus isn't a viable option for many people especially if they have to work in another state. Having people sit in traffic isn't going to "save the planet" especially as more people move further out. They just don't expect to be in office when the consequences are full to see and traffic just gets far worse than the hell it currently is?

Can you name one example of a place or time when widening a street or adding a lane has resulted in better traffic flow for cars?

No?

Neither can anyone else.

It is time to go a different path on our transportation policy.

I've lived here my entire life. THey widened streets before they became insane due to high demand already in existance. When I was a kid, 270 was 4 lanes. Then they started widening it. Imagine if it was still only 4 lanes, do you think gridlock would be improved? This area is increasing in population, people are moving further out. THe metro only goes out so far, and the parts exist now are woeful.

If it were still only 4 lanes, then there would be a lot fewer people driving down 270 on it. Instead we spent an enormous amount of money to widen 270 in the 1990s, which was supposed to "solve" congestion for decades, and the lanes filled up again in just a few years. That's induced demand. And meanwhile that money wasn't spent on other things that would have permanently helped people get places, like extending Metro to Germantown.

No, it just means that longstanding projects that were planned in the 60s were delayed and delayed (and many, like the Outer Beltway were never built), so we are consistently way behind what is needed to meet population growth. Yeah, if you are building half the needed capacity then those will fill up fast.

Not only that but the statement itself about 270 widening actually supports the outcome. It was previously widened in the 90s and now it’s 30 years later. It did solve the problem for decades. Now we need to address it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, it just means that longstanding projects that were planned in the 60s were delayed and delayed (and many, like the Outer Beltway were never built), so we are consistently way behind what is needed to meet population growth. Yeah, if you are building half the needed capacity then those will fill up fast.

Between 1993 and 2017, in the largest 100 urbanized areas in the US,

-population increased by 32%
-freeway lane miles increased by 42%
-congestion increased by 144%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I concur, it's cheaper to drive if you don't work downtown than take the metro. FOr example if I were to take public transit to my current job, it would take at least 2 hours each way, I'd pay the maximum fare both ways and pay the metro parking fee. Instead I drive on roads that are subsidized for your use, takes about 45 minutes each way, and there's free parking at work.someone paid for the parking, it just isn't you. It is most liklely me in the form of subsidies to your employer

IOW if you paid the actual costs for your commute, metro would be more cost effective.

And this isn’t even accounting for the fact that gas should be $6 per gallon at MINIMUM to account for the trillions in tax dollars spent to fight wars over oil k the Middle East.

Gas and driving have huge externalities.

But when Trump made us energy independent, we had to immediately reverse all of the policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, it just means that longstanding projects that were planned in the 60s were delayed and delayed (and many, like the Outer Beltway were never built), so we are consistently way behind what is needed to meet population growth. Yeah, if you are building half the needed capacity then those will fill up fast.

Not only that but the statement itself about 270 widening actually supports the outcome. It was previously widened in the 90s and now it’s 30 years later. It did solve the problem for decades. Now we need to address it again.

By 2000, people were already talking about widening 270 again. Some solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I concur, it's cheaper to drive if you don't work downtown than take the metro. FOr example if I were to take public transit to my current job, it would take at least 2 hours each way, I'd pay the maximum fare both ways and pay the metro parking fee. Instead I drive on roads that are subsidized for your use, takes about 45 minutes each way, and there's free parking at work.someone paid for the parking, it just isn't you. It is most liklely me in the form of subsidies to your employer

IOW if you paid the actual costs for your commute, metro would be more cost effective.

Each Metro trip is VERY subsidized...

Each driving trip is VERY subsidized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it just means that longstanding projects that were planned in the 60s were delayed and delayed (and many, like the Outer Beltway were never built), so we are consistently way behind what is needed to meet population growth. Yeah, if you are building half the needed capacity then those will fill up fast.

Not only that but the statement itself about 270 widening actually supports the outcome. It was previously widened in the 90s and now it’s 30 years later. It did solve the problem for decades. Now we need to address it again.

By 2000, people were already talking about widening 270 again. Some solution.
And now it is 3 decades later. You need to accept change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard a politician on the radio say re: opposing expanding 270, that it doesn't address social and environmental justice. These people are insane. Like they should be institutionalized. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to sit in traffic hours every day to "own the cons". These people are deranged.

I thought what they said was that the proposal was thrown together sloppily and failed to address those issues as is required. I actually don't think they are opposed to it, but you have to do the proposal correctly or it is a non-starter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Presumably that "induced demand" was created by people who wanted to drive before but couldn't because of conditions. I happen to think that government that enables more people to be satisfied is good government.

I'm wondering what other areas you apply that philosophy to, because polls consistently show large margins of support for universal health care coverage, good transit options, and automatic voter registration for all eligible voters.

I'll address the first one, since I have spent a career in health care policy. The only reason that universal health care might have widespread public support is that they haven't spent any time getting care in: Europe, the VA or Tri-Care. It is a fantasy. Anyone with money buys out of the universal system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a recognition that

1. Widening highways for "congestion relief" only leads to more driving and more congestion
2. While also contributing to air pollution, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions
3. And dumping the additional cars on local roads that aren't any bigger
4. Plus the for-profit company that's supposedly going to build it will only make a profit if the "free" lanes stay backed up
5. Plus taxpayers have ended up on the hook for the projects that the for-profit company has built elsewhere
6. Plus it was unlikely to get federal approval anyway because there are alternatives that are less damaging to the environment

Other than that, though...

(And the solution to inadequate transit is to fund better and more transit.)

That makes no sense. People are going to commute regardless of whether they expand roads or not. And this area, the closer you get to DC, the more expensive it is, so people will continue moving away, especially with violent crime going up. Wishing it away isn't a sol;ution. Busses are not a solution. Metro isn't a solution. Even if they expanded metro to frederick and to Woodbridge, it still would make no difference as metro is unreliable at best. Dangerous at worse. What is the solution then?

Widening highways leads to increased traffic is pretty much a rule in road planning. There are outlier exceptions where this doesn't happen, but virtually every time you add roads you add drivers.

And if you don't widen it when it's already overburned you have gridlock. Sitting in traffic isn't going to save the planet. what is wrong with people?

Historical experience doesn't support your belief that expanding the highways will lead to people not sitting in traffic. They'll still be sitting in traffic, there'll just be more of them.

Prove this. Show me proof that not expanding an overburdened system provides relief to the current gridlock.
What is your solution? TO pray the traffic away? Do you take Metro? It's beyond woeful. It is NOT a viable solution. It is not a transportation system. It is a jobs program. It is not going to provide relief, it is not going to take many cars off the road. So what do you propose to deal with the CURRENT gridlock which is only going to get worse?

It’s called induced demand. Basically once people see that expanded capacity, more people move further out. Like right now we prioritize living close in b/c traffic is bad, but if there wasn’t traffic demand for further out increases.

https://www.brookings.edu/book/still-stuck-in-traffic/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it just means that longstanding projects that were planned in the 60s were delayed and delayed (and many, like the Outer Beltway were never built), so we are consistently way behind what is needed to meet population growth. Yeah, if you are building half the needed capacity then those will fill up fast.

Not only that but the statement itself about 270 widening actually supports the outcome. It was previously widened in the 90s and now it’s 30 years later. It did solve the problem for decades. Now we need to address it again.

By 2000, people were already talking about widening 270 again. Some solution.

And now it is 3 decades later. You need to accept change.

Eh? You're the one advocating the same old failed strategy. Let's try something different.