Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No, the problem isn't Arlington. Interstate 66 inside the beltway is technically a parkway, not freeway. That was part of the deal when the feds negotiated cutting through neighborhoods in the late 1970's. The problem is, there is not one example where adding lanes or building new roads has "solved" traffic congestion. You can build until the cows come home and all that will happen is more cars will fill the roads.
Bottlenecking to 2 lanes certainly isn't solving anything.
Yes, this. At the very least, 66 should be 3 lanes eastbound until the Ballston exit. I drive 66 every morning, as an HOV, and it is almost always congested. And there are a LOT of cars that get off in Arlington. I get Arlington's argument about not wanting all these cars "cutting through" to DC, but Arlington refuses to acknowledge there are plenty of folks who get off of 66 in Arlington. (I get off and park in Rosslyn, which means I'm also spending money in Rosslyn.)
Anonymous wrote:Braddock into 495 is insane. You'd be much better off driving to the Burke VRE or even the Manassas VRE and taking the train in. It's SO comfortable and incredibly relaxing vs. dealing with the constant stress of traffic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Braddock into 495 is insane. You'd be much better off driving to the Burke VRE or even the Manassas VRE and taking the train in. It's SO comfortable and incredibly relaxing vs. dealing with the constant stress of traffic.
PP, Where do you take the train to and how long does it take? How is parking at the VRE station?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No, the problem isn't Arlington. Interstate 66 inside the beltway is technically a parkway, not freeway. That was part of the deal when the feds negotiated cutting through neighborhoods in the late 1970's. The problem is, there is not one example where adding lanes or building new roads has "solved" traffic congestion. You can build until the cows come home and all that will happen is more cars will fill the roads.
Where did you get this?
Anonymous wrote:No, the problem isn't Arlington. Interstate 66 inside the beltway is technically a parkway, not freeway. That was part of the deal when the feds negotiated cutting through neighborhoods in the late 1970's. The problem is, there is not one example where adding lanes or building new roads has "solved" traffic congestion. You can build until the cows come home and all that will happen is more cars will fill the roads.
Anonymous wrote:Braddock into 495 is insane. You'd be much better off driving to the Burke VRE or even the Manassas VRE and taking the train in. It's SO comfortable and incredibly relaxing vs. dealing with the constant stress of traffic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No, the problem isn't Arlington. Interstate 66 inside the beltway is technically a parkway, not freeway. That was part of the deal when the feds negotiated cutting through neighborhoods in the late 1970's. The problem is, there is not one example where adding lanes or building new roads has "solved" traffic congestion. You can build until the cows come home and all that will happen is more cars will fill the roads.
Bottlenecking to 2 lanes certainly isn't solving anything.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
With the volume of cars on 66, they really need to widen that road out to 8 lanes on each side.
Because the three previous times they widened 66 it solved the problem? Really, enough, you cannot build your way out of vehicular traffic. The sooner everyone realizes this, the sooner we will have public policy and dollars to go to real solutions.
Anonymous wrote:No, the problem isn't Arlington. Interstate 66 inside the beltway is technically a parkway, not freeway. That was part of the deal when the feds negotiated cutting through neighborhoods in the late 1970's. The problem is, there is not one example where adding lanes or building new roads has "solved" traffic congestion. You can build until the cows come home and all that will happen is more cars will fill the roads.