MD Beltway Widening..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of widening the beltway and destroying homes in the process and spending $$$$ tons of money. Why not just extend the ICC across the Potomac and connect it with Rt. 28 in NoVa which has recently been widened and converted to an expressway? It would do several things, give us an alternate Potomac crossing and would cause less disruption as that section of MoCo is largely rural so less homes would be demolished. If people are concerned about sprawl limit the amount of the exits (or ban them altogether from I-270 until you cross into NoVa) and continue to restrict development in that area which is part of the Agricultural Reserve. Make it a variable toll road based on congestion to recoup the money for construction and maintenance and allow carpools and buses to use it for free (with an EZPass Flex) to give people an incentive to carpool.

I bet this would be a popular route as it would give people in Frederick, Northern MoCo/Southern HoCo, and PG County easier access to the job rich Dulles Tech Corridor and also give people working there access to more affordable housing areas. It would take pressure off the American Legion and Point of Rocks bridges. I support transit and denser development around transit stations but understand not everyone will be able to give up their cars. It would make it easier to get around and through our region, as we have a lot of traffic going through.

For one thing - it would cost $$$$ tons of money.

For another - not that many people are currently driving that way, but lots more sure would if there were a shiny new bridge for them to do it on.

If you support transit and denser development around transit stations, then you should understand that a new highway across the Potomac would basically be the opposite of that.

Also, entirely apart from whether or not it's a good idea:

1. Maryland will never support it, and Maryland owns the Potomac River.
2. There is no route across the Ag Reserve where that's possible. Too much land in conservation and agricultural easements.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the widen-highway vs. expand-transit argument is that the majority of the opponents of highway widening would never take even mass transit. They says "expand bus rapid transit" and "improve metro," but when push comes to shove, they wouldn't use it to commute or run errands, etc. Opponents of highway widening are hypocrites: they want everyone else to use public transit but not themselves - they love being in their own cars. They are just another form of NIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build more lanes and more people will drive there. Let’s face it, it’ll never get better.

Exactly this. Widening is well proven NOT to ease traffic in the long run. It just moves the traffic around, and eventually more cars take that route and everyone is in traffic again.

LA has 10 lane free ways that are at a stand still a lot of the time.

The only thing proven to ease congestion: mass transport. More buses, more trains, less parking and highways lanes.

noy everyone can afford to live inside the beltway

So what? There can be more buses, more trains, less parking, and fewer highway lanes outside the Beltway too. In fact, there should be.

You clearly don’t understand American car culture. It’s the new horse.

This is the "we do it that way so we should keep doing it that way because we do it that way" argument.

Widening highways to fix congestion is throwing money down a hole. A lot of money. Time after time after time. Let's stop doing that.

NP. Has the Metro extension to, say, Reston, helped alleviate car traffic? Doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the widen-highway vs. expand-transit argument is that the majority of the opponents of highway widening would never take even mass transit. They says "expand bus rapid transit" and "improve metro," but when push comes to shove, they wouldn't use it to commute or run errands, etc. Opponents of highway widening are hypocrites: they want everyone else to use public transit but not themselves - they love being in their own cars. They are just another form of NIMBYs.

See, e.g., north Arlington and 66. Not in my (tiny) backyard!

[Anonymous]

Can someone succinctly tell me how this will affect 20910?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the widen-highway vs. expand-transit argument is that the majority of the opponents of highway widening would never take even mass transit. They says "expand bus rapid transit" and "improve metro," but when push comes to shove, they wouldn't use it to commute or run errands, etc. Opponents of highway widening are hypocrites: they want everyone else to use public transit but not themselves - they love being in their own cars. They are just another form of NIMBYs.

People generally choose to drive when driving is more convenient than transit.

This doesn't make people hypocrites. It makes people people.

Want people to take transit? Stop making driving more convenient, and start making transit more convenient.

-opponent of highway widening who drives, rides the train/bus/Metro, bikes, and walks for transportation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone succinctly tell me how this will affect 20910?

The Board of Public Works voted 2-1 (Hogan and Franchot for, Kopp against) something - they weren't quite sure what - that would widen 270 first, then the Beltway.

So the most succinct answer is: nobody knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build more lanes and more people will drive there. Let’s face it, it’ll never get better.

Exactly this. Widening is well proven NOT to ease traffic in the long run. It just moves the traffic around, and eventually more cars take that route and everyone is in traffic again.

LA has 10 lane free ways that are at a stand still a lot of the time.

The only thing proven to ease congestion: mass transport. More buses, more trains, less parking and highways lanes.

noy everyone can afford to live inside the beltway

So what? There can be more buses, more trains, less parking, and fewer highway lanes outside the Beltway too. In fact, there should be.

You clearly don’t understand American car culture. It’s the new horse.

This is the "we do it that way so we should keep doing it that way because we do it that way" argument.

Widening highways to fix congestion is throwing money down a hole. A lot of money. Time after time after time. Let's stop doing that.

NP. Has the Metro extension to, say, Reston, helped alleviate car traffic? Doubt it.

It's not supposed to alleviate car traffic. It's supposed to improve mobility. Has it done that? Yes, it has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the widen-highway vs. expand-transit argument is that the majority of the opponents of highway widening would never take even mass transit. They says "expand bus rapid transit" and "improve metro," but when push comes to shove, they wouldn't use it to commute or run errands, etc. Opponents of highway widening are hypocrites: they want everyone else to use public transit but not themselves - they love being in their own cars. They are just another form of NIMBYs.

Except most of us live in areas where we can walk bike and take mass transit. We are just tired of our tax dollars going to such a wasteful pit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the widen-highway vs. expand-transit argument is that the majority of the opponents of highway widening would never take even mass transit. They says "expand bus rapid transit" and "improve metro," but when push comes to shove, they wouldn't use it to commute or run errands, etc. Opponents of highway widening are hypocrites: they want everyone else to use public transit but not themselves - they love being in their own cars. They are just another form of NIMBYs.

People generally choose to drive when driving is more convenient than transit.

This doesn't make people hypocrites. It makes people people.

Want people to take transit? Stop making driving more convenient, and start making transit more convenient.

-opponent of highway widening who drives, rides the train/bus/Metro, bikes, and walks for transportation

Indeed.. right now, transit is not more convenient. It would take me 1.5 hours to get to Reston from where I live by metro. It takes less than one hour by car, even with the bridge.

The problem with mass transit is that all the lines in MD go through DC to get to VA. It's not efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone succinctly tell me how this will affect 20910?

The Board of Public Works voted 2-1 (Hogan and Franchot for, Kopp against) something - they weren't quite sure what - that would widen 270 first, then the Beltway.

So the most succinct answer is: nobody knows.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the widen-highway vs. expand-transit argument is that the majority of the opponents of highway widening would never take even mass transit. They says "expand bus rapid transit" and "improve metro," but when push comes to shove, they wouldn't use it to commute or run errands, etc. Opponents of highway widening are hypocrites: they want everyone else to use public transit but not themselves - they love being in their own cars. They are just another form of NIMBYs.

People generally choose to drive when driving is more convenient than transit.

This doesn't make people hypocrites. It makes people people.

Want people to take transit? Stop making driving more convenient, and start making transit more convenient.

-opponent of highway widening who drives, rides the train/bus/Metro, bikes, and walks for transportation

Indeed.. right now, transit is not more convenient. It would take me 1.5 hours to get to Reston from where I live by metro. It takes less than one hour by car, even with the bridge.

The problem with mass transit is that all the lines in MD go through DC to get to VA. It's not efficient.

IMO it would be helpful and get cars off the road if they made the purple line go to Tyson’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the widen-highway vs. expand-transit argument is that the majority of the opponents of highway widening would never take even mass transit. They says "expand bus rapid transit" and "improve metro," but when push comes to shove, they wouldn't use it to commute or run errands, etc. Opponents of highway widening are hypocrites: they want everyone else to use public transit but not themselves - they love being in their own cars. They are just another form of NIMBYs.

People generally choose to drive when driving is more convenient than transit.

This doesn't make people hypocrites. It makes people people.

Want people to take transit? Stop making driving more convenient, and start making transit more convenient.

-opponent of highway widening who drives, rides the train/bus/Metro, bikes, and walks for transportation

I live walking distance to the metro on the end of one line and my office is walking distance on the end of another line. It takes me 30 minutes to drive to work on the beltway but would take an 1:15 to Metro to the office. I drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build more lanes and more people will drive there. Let’s face it, it’ll never get better.

It is called "induced demand" - there is no such thing as building more lanes permanently relieving traffic. The solution is to get a good rail system in place from Frederick to Shady Grove and Union Station. And Bus Rapid Transit dedicated lanes down to Friendship Heights and Silver Spring.

For example, the MARC Brunswick Line. Except for with trains that run all day long, in both directions, and also on weekends.

Why can't we do both? I'm in favor of public transportation and highway widening. Population is growing in this area, so there is more demand. Even if everyone magically took public transport, we still need highways for commercial vehicles. Your plumber and the Giant delivery truck can't take Metro.

We've been building highways. And building, and building, and building. We know what happens when you build more highways to fix congestion: it doesn't work. Stop wasting money on it. Put the money into transit. (And then there will be plenty of room on the highways we already have for the plumber and the Giant delivery truck.)

? Where do you live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build more lanes and more people will drive there. Let’s face it, it’ll never get better.

It is called "induced demand" - there is no such thing as building more lanes permanently relieving traffic. The solution is to get a good rail system in place from Frederick to Shady Grove and Union Station. And Bus Rapid Transit dedicated lanes down to Friendship Heights and Silver Spring.

For example, the MARC Brunswick Line. Except for with trains that run all day long, in both directions, and also on weekends.

Why can't we do both? I'm in favor of public transportation and highway widening. Population is growing in this area, so there is more demand. Even if everyone magically took public transport, we still need highways for commercial vehicles. Your plumber and the Giant delivery truck can't take Metro.

We've been building highways. And building, and building, and building. We know what happens when you build more highways to fix congestion: it doesn't work. Stop wasting money on it. Put the money into transit. (And then there will be plenty of room on the highways we already have for the plumber and the Giant delivery truck.)

? Where do you live?

In the United States of America.