Reply to Widening 355 in MoCo

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Widening 355 in MoCo"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]As long as we get interchanges on 355 from the exit at the Beltway up through Urbana.[/quote]
Again, what will happen to the thousands of businesses and residences that currently line this roadway?[/quote]

I don't care. I just want a limited access highway from the Beltway up to Urbana.[/quote]
Trolls going to troll, I guess.

270 and 355 are critically important pieces of road infrastructure for the county. At minimum it should not be controversial to widen 270 and also maintain the current number of 355 travel lanes. If you actually cared about the residents and businesses, that is. [/quote]

It is controversial because widening the road is a waste of money and doesn't address the problem.[/quote]
What do you think the problem is?[/quote]

Too many people dependent on single occupancy vehicles. Maryland needs to invest in serious mass transit to connect Frederick to DC; Columbia to DC and the intermediate areas like Silver Spring, Bethesda, Rockville etc.  Building more roads leads to having more cars sitting in the traffic they create. If the goal is to move people, then build infrastructure that does that.[/quote]

Most people, such as yourself, who say ‘build more public transportation’ are the ones who would stay in their cars and never use it.  They just want to get the poors off the road so they can have it to themselves.  [/quote]

Nope, I live in DC and seldom use 270 for anything. But induced demand is a thing, and 270 is a textbook case. Try something else, because adding more lanes simply doesn't solve the problem.[/quote]

Adding lanes doesn’t solve the problem because after we add lanes we continue to add housing. Should we stop building housing? Of course not! That’s a terrible idea. We should continue building housing and we should continue adding roads to accommodate the cars that the new housing generates. Smart growth is a good idea but we don’t do smart growth in Montgomery County. We do car-oriented growth, even near transit. That has nothing to do with parking minimums and everything to do with the profitability of providing on-site parking for new housing. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics