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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear none of these people need to drive any significant distance to work. FWIW, I take metro, but DH has to drive (we live in MD, he works in NoVA) and the traffic is insane. IIRC the expansion of 495 really only went to the 270 interchange anyway, right?

Yes, that's a horrible drive. The question is, is the best solution for the state of Maryland to sign a secret contract with a for-profit company to widen the highway with toll lanes?

What’s your solution?

My solution is more and better public transportation options, better and safer walking/biking connections to public transportation, more remote work, more off-peak work hours, more incentives for people to use public transportation instead of driving by themselves, and (last but not least) adding housing close to existing transit, services, and jobs.

Any public transport from MD around the beltway to VA is never going to happen- it just isn't. I don't really agree with the financing method for the expansion and would gladly pay a higher gas tax to finance it, but I'm probably in the minority on that.

More public transport would be good of course but no one is willing to pay. And I thought MARC is already limited because it uses the CSX tracks. Metro can barely maintain what it already has and none of the NIMBYs would support an additional line or expansion of the red line.

-The only alternative is to widen highways!
-No, there are lots of alternatives (including public transit) that will move people more efficiently and more cost-effectively.
-Nobody likes those alternatives. Therefore, the only alternative is to widen highways!

Sigh...

Yes, it's true that MARC is currently limited because it uses the CSX tracks. However, the state could propose to start building additional MARC track, which would allow additional MARC service. Larry Hogan has zero interest in that, though. All he's interested in is widening highways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have clearly said that you don’t know what an EIS is and instead of recognizing that, you want to change the subject. As I stated, because you are too ignorant to understand I may have to explain this like you are 5 because you are extremely ignorant of project development. The EIS is not a substitute for feasibility study which assessed whether options are technically, financially and environmentally feasible. There was an alternative studied. A feasibility study was developed for a monorail.
https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/tso/pages/Index.aspx?PageId=122

You don’t know this because you are fixated on opposing anything and everything, particularly if it’s from Hogan. You will note that none of the political opponents to the HOT lanes have endorsed the only studied alternative. That’s because you and they have no alternatives.

It's so weird how Hogan refused to study any alternatives except his, and now you say that we have to go with his alternative because it's the only studied alternative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIght...remember when there were like 15 alternatives and then suddenly they were all excluded except the HOT PPP alternatives?

Care to provide a link so I can read about the 15 alternatives that were proposed and seriously studied?

DP. Here you go: https://495-270-p3.com/environmental/alternatives/

However, none of the alternatives were seriously studied. They were just there because federal law requires the study to include alternatives. It was obvious from the get-go that the Hogan adminsitration wanted HOT lanes with a P3, was only considering HOT lanes with a P3, and would only choose HOT lanes with a P3.

You don’t know what an EIS.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and if you follow the link, you can find the DEIS.

You misunderstand. The analysis of alternatives in an EIS does not need to include realisitic or viable alternatives. It’s not a substitute for a feasibility study. It’s to assess the environmental and social impact of a project against potential alternatives, including no action. As a result, by claiming the EIS includes seriously studied real alternatives proves that you don’t know what an EIS is and what it’s for.

So you're saying that the Hogan administration never seriously studied real alternatives (which I agree with), and this is an argument FOR the Hogan administration's plan?

I have clearly said that you don’t know what an EIS is and instead of recognizing that, you want to change the subject. As I stated, because you are too ignorant to understand I may have to explain this like you are 5 because you are extremely ignorant of project development. The EIS is not a substitute for feasibility study which assessed whether options are technically, financially and environmentally feasible. There was an alternative studied. A feasibility study was developed for a monorail.
https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/tso/pages/Index.aspx?PageId=122

You don’t know this because you are fixated on opposing anything and everything, particularly if it’s from Hogan. You will note that none of the political opponents to the HOT lanes have endorsed the only studied alternative. That’s because you and they have no alternatives.

Anonymous wrote:
I have clearly said that you don’t know what an EIS is and instead of recognizing that, you want to change the subject. As I stated, because you are too ignorant to understand I may have to explain this like you are 5 because you are extremely ignorant of project development. The EIS is not a substitute for feasibility study which assessed whether options are technically, financially and environmentally feasible. There was an alternative studied. A feasibility study was developed for a monorail.
https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/tso/pages/Index.aspx?PageId=122

You don’t know this because you are fixated on opposing anything and everything, particularly if it’s from Hogan. You will note that none of the political opponents to the HOT lanes have endorsed the only studied alternative. That’s because you and they have no alternatives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIght...remember when there were like 15 alternatives and then suddenly they were all excluded except the HOT PPP alternatives?

Care to provide a link so I can read about the 15 alternatives that were proposed and seriously studied?

DP. Here you go: https://495-270-p3.com/environmental/alternatives/

However, none of the alternatives were seriously studied. They were just there because federal law requires the study to include alternatives. It was obvious from the get-go that the Hogan adminsitration wanted HOT lanes with a P3, was only considering HOT lanes with a P3, and would only choose HOT lanes with a P3.

You don’t know what an EIS.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and if you follow the link, you can find the DEIS.

You misunderstand. The analysis of alternatives in an EIS does not need to include realisitic or viable alternatives. It’s not a substitute for a feasibility study. It’s to assess the environmental and social impact of a project against potential alternatives, including no action. As a result, by claiming the EIS includes seriously studied real alternatives proves that you don’t know what an EIS is and what it’s for.

So you're saying that the Hogan administration never seriously studied real alternatives (which I agree with), and this is an argument FOR the Hogan administration's plan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIght...remember when there were like 15 alternatives and then suddenly they were all excluded except the HOT PPP alternatives?

Care to provide a link so I can read about the 15 alternatives that were proposed and seriously studied?

DP. Here you go: https://495-270-p3.com/environmental/alternatives/

However, none of the alternatives were seriously studied. They were just there because federal law requires the study to include alternatives. It was obvious from the get-go that the Hogan adminsitration wanted HOT lanes with a P3, was only considering HOT lanes with a P3, and would only choose HOT lanes with a P3.

You don’t know what an EIS.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and if you follow the link, you can find the DEIS.

You misunderstand. The analysis of alternatives in an EIS does not need to include realisitic or viable alternatives. It’s not a substitute for a feasibility study. It’s to assess the environmental and social impact of a project against potential alternatives, including no action. As a result, by claiming the EIS includes seriously studied real alternatives proves that you don’t know what an EIS is and what it’s for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^and also there's that whole climate change thing...

There’s also the whole electric car thing.

Electric cars don't run on unicorn dust. Unicorn dust also doesn't build roads or power road maintenance. If you've been thinking that electric cars will solve the climate change problem, you should stop thinking that.

Your response proves you are an idiot child. You clearly know nothing about electric cars, nor about the future of distributed generation, which is funny because you pretend to be a know it all.

Distributed generation is great, but electric cars still aren't going to solve the climate change problem.

What do you think the climate change problem is exactly? You don’t know what the grid emissions are nor do you seem to have a clue what the equivalent GHG emissions are for an electric car over current ICE tech. Before you think you want to engage on an issue that you think you know something, you better think again. Nothing worse than the aggressively ignorant.

Are GHG emissions lower for electric cars than internal-combustion engines? Sure. But GHG emissions for other modes of transportation are lower still. Electric cars aren't going to solve the climate change problem.

Look son. You have just shown in this post that you are out of your depth. You may want stop.

NP. Are you actually arguing that if all cars were suddenly switched to electric this would solve climate change?

You are probably the same person but also clearly have no clue what you are talking about. I love you people, internet experts. Out of your depth and absolutely hilarious.

Instead of insults, why don't you try responding with your actual thoughts on electric cars and climate change?

I am insulting you because you claim to know what is needed and what is not needed to “solve climate change” when you clearly have not bothered to actually spend any time understanding the issue. You are an interloper on a subject that is complex and you your mental models are so simplistic that based on your willingness to make ignorant assertions I am not sure that you are capable of understanding much.

First of all, you don’t even have a target for atmospheric CO2. Start with that. Do you know Biden’s current target? Do you know Biden’s current emissions goal? You don’t know either of these, but you know what is needed to “solve climate change”?

Second, all approaches to climate change need to address all emissions sources and need to be multisectoral. In your mind because any one sector cannot reduce emissions sufficiently on its own (although you have no idea what the sectoral composition of emissions are and how much reductions are needed) that it is not worth doing anything. It’s both incredibly naive and ignorant.

Third, you don’t know what the transportation contribution to emissions are, you don’t know what an ISO is or grid emissions factors or understand the basic premise of decarbonization. So you in actual fact are informant as to whether or not electric vehicles in their own can indeed meet or emissions targets or how much electric vehicles can contribute to meeting emissions targets.

So yeah, I’m going to laugh at you and call you names. Because you are absolutely out of your depth.

Furthermore, you have no understanding nor even a prediction of whether or not the HOT lanes would increase GHG emissions and if so by how much. Totally farcical. Up and down.

So stop talking about things you have no clue about and have some humility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIght...remember when there were like 15 alternatives and then suddenly they were all excluded except the HOT PPP alternatives?

Care to provide a link so I can read about the 15 alternatives that were proposed and seriously studied?

DP. Here you go: https://495-270-p3.com/environmental/alternatives/

However, none of the alternatives were seriously studied. They were just there because federal law requires the study to include alternatives. It was obvious from the get-go that the Hogan adminsitration wanted HOT lanes with a P3, was only considering HOT lanes with a P3, and would only choose HOT lanes with a P3.

You don’t know what an EIS.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and if you follow the link, you can find the DEIS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIght...remember when there were like 15 alternatives and then suddenly they were all excluded except the HOT PPP alternatives?

Care to provide a link so I can read about the 15 alternatives that were proposed and seriously studied?

DP. Here you go: https://495-270-p3.com/environmental/alternatives/

However, none of the alternatives were seriously studied. They were just there because federal law requires the study to include alternatives. It was obvious from the get-go that the Hogan adminsitration wanted HOT lanes with a P3, was only considering HOT lanes with a P3, and would only choose HOT lanes with a P3.

You don’t know what an EIS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIght...remember when there were like 15 alternatives and then suddenly they were all excluded except the HOT PPP alternatives?

Care to provide a link so I can read about the 15 alternatives that were proposed and seriously studied?

DP. Here you go: https://495-270-p3.com/environmental/alternatives/

However, none of the alternatives were seriously studied. They were just there because federal law requires the study to include alternatives. It was obvious from the get-go that the Hogan adminsitration wanted HOT lanes with a P3, was only considering HOT lanes with a P3, and would only choose HOT lanes with a P3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don’t have a credible alternative to Hogan’s plan. So it’s either his plan or no plan. I will go with the person that actually has a plan over the people without a plan thank you very much.

Really? I propose scrapping the bad plan and working to come up with a different, better plan, over going with the bad plan on the basis that the only current plan is the bad plan.

You say his plan is bad but there have never been any alternative plans. The current alternative plan is the second bridge which is currently under study, but also opposed by the county. The county is opposed to anything infrastructure, despite decades of promises (see M83). The state want to protect BWI. The combination of the two is a diminished economy that will impoverish this county. Protectionism never results I’m good outcomes nor does Luddite NIMBYism.

Oh good grief, you're an M83 supporter, too. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

It's not 1960 anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIght...remember when there were like 15 alternatives and then suddenly they were all excluded except the HOT PPP alternatives?

Care to provide a link so I can read about the 15 alternatives that were proposed and seriously studied?