Capital Beltway Accord

[Anonymous]

I’m sure opinions will vary. However, I think this deal is vital for the future of mobility in the region...

...although a new bridge upstream would be best!

https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2019/november/headline-849278-en.html

[Anonymous]

Why would you think it's vital for the future of mobility? This is how it will work:

1. Spend lots of money on a wider bridge.
2. More people will drive on it, because congestion has been solved!
3. The same traffic back-ups will return, only on a wider bridge that cost a lot of money.
4. See 1.

If it's mobility you want, then stop trying to road-build your way out of traffic. It doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, this bridge expansion is needed and I'm a reluctant car owner who lives in urban DC and only uses his car 2x per week.

This region is getting more populated and denser. There will be more and more people wanting to live here and pass cargo through here.

[Anonymous]

It would create a bottle neck, no? You can have 25 lanes on the Am Leg Bridge, but as soon as you crossover to either MD or VA you'll have to funnel down into the regular 4 lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this bridge expansion is needed and I'm a reluctant car owner who lives in urban DC and only uses his car 2x per week.

This region is getting more populated and denser. There will be more and more people wanting to live here and pass cargo through here.

What works really well for mobility in densely populated areas: mass transit, land use where people are near things, and enabling walking/biking/bus trips to things that are near
What works really badly for mobility in densely populated areas: transportation by single-occupancy vehicle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you think it's vital for the future of mobility? This is how it will work:

1. Spend lots of money on a wider bridge.
2. More people will drive on it, because congestion has been solved!
3. The same traffic back-ups will return, only on a wider bridge that cost a lot of money.
4. See 1.

If it's mobility you want, then stop trying to road-build your way out of traffic. It doesn't work.

what does?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you think it's vital for the future of mobility? This is how it will work:

1. Spend lots of money on a wider bridge.
2. More people will drive on it, because congestion has been solved!
3. The same traffic back-ups will return, only on a wider bridge that cost a lot of money.
4. See 1.

If it's mobility you want, then stop trying to road-build your way out of traffic. It doesn't work.

what does?

Making it convenient for people to get places without having to get into their cars. So:

-land use policies that put housing near stuff, so that people can conveniently reach stuff by walking, biking, or taking transit (which includes buses).
-transportation infrastructure that enables people to safely and conveniently go places by walking, biking, or taking transit (which includes buses).

Please do NOT respond by saying that not everyone can walk, bike, take transit (which includes buses), or live near stuff. That's not the point. Not everyone can drive, and yet here we are, spending another couple of billion dollars to make it easier for more people to drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you think it's vital for the future of mobility? This is how it will work:

1. Spend lots of money on a wider bridge.
2. More people will drive on it, because congestion has been solved!
3. The same traffic back-ups will return, only on a wider bridge that cost a lot of money.
4. See 1.

If it's mobility you want, then stop trying to road-build your way out of traffic. It doesn't work.

what does?

Banning cars for everyone except the elite, making everyone live in 600sq ft high rise condos, and ride bikes everywhere.

It worked in Russia in the 80's. It'll work here too.

[Anonymous]

This is definitely better than an upstream bridge - this is the place where the most traffic is, and where the most growth will (and should) come, not out in the MoCo ag area, etc.

Tolled lanes will at least keep traffic moving in those lanes, and get drivers to pay for the massive costs. Also will be a good place to run buses - establishing the first real transit connection between MoCo and Tysons.

I am concerned about the costs which the states will still pay, though. Both states have transit projects that are not funded, and which are important to the region's future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you think it's vital for the future of mobility? This is how it will work:

1. Spend lots of money on a wider bridge.
2. More people will drive on it, because congestion has been solved!
3. The same traffic back-ups will return, only on a wider bridge that cost a lot of money.
4. See 1.

If it's mobility you want, then stop trying to road-build your way out of traffic. It doesn't work.

what does?

Banning cars for everyone except the elite, making everyone live in 600sq ft high rise condos, and ride bikes everywhere.

It worked in Russia in the 80's. It'll work here too.

There was a lot of bike-riding and homeownership in Russia in the 1980s? How about that.

[Anonymous]

Why not a tunnel for the upper Potomac crossing instead of a bridge? Baltimore & Hampton Roads have tunnels. That would not impact the C&O canal or the Ag. Reserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not a tunnel for the upper Potomac crossing instead of a bridge? Baltimore & Hampton Roads have tunnels. That would not impact the C&O canal or the Ag. Reserve.

What problem would that solve? Unless you're suggesting a tunnel all the way from the Potomac River to Gaithersburg?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not a tunnel for the upper Potomac crossing instead of a bridge? Baltimore & Hampton Roads have tunnels. That would not impact the C&O canal or the Ag. Reserve.

The issue is not the bridge, it's the land from the bridge to the nearest highway -- to 370 in MD's case. It's about 8 miles and would cut through a tiny corner of the Ag Reserve thus freaking out all the preservationists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you think it's vital for the future of mobility? This is how it will work:

1. Spend lots of money on a wider bridge.
2. More people will drive on it, because congestion has been solved!
3. The same traffic back-ups will return, only on a wider bridge that cost a lot of money.
4. See 1.

If it's mobility you want, then stop trying to road-build your way out of traffic. It doesn't work.

So how about we shrink all roads to 1-lane each way and force everyone to find alternate methods?

Or perhaps gov't should serve the needs of the people? I think the ideal solution is to expand both public transit and roads. For example, Hogan got the Purple Line finally started and it'll be online in a couple years. Silver Line's next phase due to open shortly too. Now let's focus some efforts on roads too.

The ICC opened about 10 years ago and it's not gridlocked. It may eventually be, but even giving people traffic relief for 10 years seems worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you think it's vital for the future of mobility? This is how it will work:

1. Spend lots of money on a wider bridge.
2. More people will drive on it, because congestion has been solved!
3. The same traffic back-ups will return, only on a wider bridge that cost a lot of money.
4. See 1.

If it's mobility you want, then stop trying to road-build your way out of traffic. It doesn't work.

So how about we shrink all roads to 1-lane each way and force everyone to find alternate methods?

Or perhaps gov't should serve the needs of the people? I think the ideal solution is to expand both public transit and roads. For example, Hogan got the Purple Line finally started and it'll be online in a couple years. Silver Line's next phase due to open shortly too. Now let's focus some efforts on roads too.

The ICC opened about 10 years ago and it's not gridlocked. It may eventually be, but even giving people traffic relief for 10 years seems worth it.

Yes, we need to reallocate road space from cars to buses, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Government should serve the needs of the people by enabling mobility and safe streets for everyone. The model where everyone gets everywhere by getting in their car, and expects big roads with no delays, doesn't work.