AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program  (Read 30899 times)

Dirt Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 906
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 06:25:44 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #250 on: December 31, 2020, 09:49:39 AM »

The Navy wrote a strongly worded letter stating opposition to this project though the article really tried to enforce a narrative it is due to some form of activism on the Navyís part promoting mass transit which Iím calling bull on. This project is sorely needed so I hope it doesnít die or get scaled back. My guess is the Navy simply isnít keen on losing any property and thatís what it is about.

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2020/11/20/u-s-navy-strongly-opposed-to-capital-beltway-widening-project/

Quote
The Navy wrote a strongly worded letter stating opposition to this project...

Going back to the statement that started all of this, it appears that the Navy has a valid stakeholders position in this project.  The project will likely affect both NWSC Carderock and Naval Support Activity Center Bethesda.  I interviewed at NWSC Carderock just after college (didn't get the job, schucks!) and remembered parking in a lot adjacent to the Beltway.  Most of that parking lot is long gone, taken by the various widening projects.  At least there is still a treeline barrier between the front entrance and the highway.  I haven't seen plans, but it seems likely that all of those trees will need to go (and the NWSC may not even qualify for a noise barrier wall).

All that being said, the Beltway is in continuous need of widening since there are no viable alternative routes.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10963
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #251 on: January 07, 2021, 11:43:17 AM »

Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

jmacswimmer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 841
  • *DING, DONG* Doors, Closing!

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #252 on: February 18, 2021, 04:40:31 PM »

Logged
"Now, what if da Bearss were to enter the Indianapolis 5-hunnert?"
"How would they compete?"
"Let's say they rode together in a big buss."
"Is Ditka driving?"
"Of course!"
"Then I like da Bear buss."
"DA BEARSSS BUSSSS"

odditude

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 612
  • Location: NOVA
  • Last Login: July 22, 2021, 02:50:39 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #253 on: February 18, 2021, 06:57:42 PM »

MDOT issued a press release earlier today selecting the development team:

https://495-270-p3.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MDOT-Selects-Developer-for-American-Legion-Bridge-I-270-P3-2.18.2021.pdf

i find it interesting that I-495 is not mentioned once in the press release by number (only by reference as "from the American Legion Bridge to I-270").
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10963
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #254 on: February 19, 2021, 10:38:30 AM »

Washington Post: Maryland selects Transurban, Macquarie to develop toll lanes for Beltway, I-270

Quote
Maryland transportation officials announced Thursday that they have selected Australian toll road operator Transurban to develop high-occupancy toll lanes for the Capital Beltway and Interstate 270, potentially cementing the companyís dominance in the Washington region.

Quote
If Transurban and its partner, Australian investment bank Macquarie Capital, ultimately reach a 50-year deal with the state to build and operate the lanes, Transurban eventually would control 102 miles of express toll lanes around the nationís capital ó 37 in Maryland and 65 in Northern Virginia. Connecting high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in the two states would mark the beginnings of a regional network of express lanes in one of the most traffic-clogged areas of the country.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10963
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #255 on: March 04, 2021, 09:01:46 AM »

Washington Post: Losing bidder protests Maryland selection for Beltway, I-270 toll lanes developer

Quote
The Maryland Department of Transportation said a losing bidder has filed a protest against its selection of Australian firms Transurban and Macquarie Capital to develop billions of dollarsí worth of toll lanes for the Capital Beltway and Interstate 270.

Quote
MDOT wouldnít say Wednesday which company or companies filed the protest or what wrongdoing is alleged. It also declined to release the protest filing.

Quote
Experts say such protests typically accuse the government or winner of unfairness by not following the bid rules or requirements. In rare cases, they can allege illegal behavior, such as bribery.

Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

BrianP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 536
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:25:13 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #256 on: May 12, 2021, 05:48:43 PM »

New Recommended Preferred Alternative to Deliver Phase 1 South: American Legion Bridge I-270 to I-370
Quote
After several months of continuous collaboration and listening to agency partners, public officials and stakeholders, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) have identified Alternative 9: Phase 1 South as the new Recommended Preferred Alternative (RPA) for the Managed Lanes Study (MLS). The new RPA focuses solely on building a new American Legion Bridge and delivering two high occupancy toll (HOT) managed lanes in each direction on Phase 1 South: American Legion Bridge I-270 to I-370 with no action at this time on I-495 east of the I-270 eastern spur.
There's an error on the map on that page.  They incorrectly label MD 28 as MD 85.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10963
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #257 on: May 13, 2021, 04:31:14 PM »

WTOP Radio: MDOT removes large stretch of Capital Beltway from toll-lane plan

Quote
Bowing to opponents of the plan to widen two highways that run through Montgomery County, state transportation officials announced on Wednesday that they have scaled back their footprint for the project.

Quote
The changes are reflected in a ďnew recommended preferred alternativeĒ to the planned construction of toll lanes on the Capital Beltway (I-495) and Interstate 270.

Quote
Under the revision, Maryland and its team of private-sector investors would continue to move forward with the reconstruction of the American Legion Bridge and the widening of the western-most section of I-495 and the southern section of I-270.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1876
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:51 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #258 on: May 13, 2021, 05:09:23 PM »

Well that sucks but Iím not surprised these days
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:58 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #259 on: May 14, 2021, 12:38:24 AM »

Well that sucks but Iím not surprised these days

Honestly, a wider American Legion Bridge is the most sorely needed part of this. After that is done, Montgomery might finally be ready to face facts, but probably not until then.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1876
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:51 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #260 on: May 14, 2021, 12:53:34 AM »

Well that sucks but Iím not surprised these days

Honestly, a wider American Legion Bridge is the most sorely needed part of this. After that is done, Montgomery might finally be ready to face facts, but probably not until then.
Thatís kind of what I was thinking as well. Maybe once itís done the cancelled section will come back.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11796
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 11:35:07 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #261 on: May 14, 2021, 11:16:46 AM »

I highly doubt you'll see anything across the north leg of the Beltway (between 270 and 95).  Too much Rock Creek Park and right-of-way impact.  There's also the Navy and DoD saying a hard NO to using any of the Naval Hospital property, which would push even more impacts into Rock Creek Park.  These are also facts to face.
Logged

jmacswimmer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 841
  • *DING, DONG* Doors, Closing!

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #262 on: May 14, 2021, 11:59:01 AM »

I highly doubt you'll see anything across the north leg of the Beltway (between 270 and 95).  Too much Rock Creek Park and right-of-way impact.  There's also the Navy and DoD saying a hard NO to using any of the Naval Hospital property, which would push even more impacts into Rock Creek Park.  These are also facts to face.

Completely agreed here (and while not perfect, the ICC does at least exist to bypass this segment), but I'm surprised the PG County portion was axed as well.  The PG opposition is much less vocal than Montgomery, and the beltway's existing ROW is noticeably wider in PG compared to Montgomery.
Logged
"Now, what if da Bearss were to enter the Indianapolis 5-hunnert?"
"How would they compete?"
"Let's say they rode together in a big buss."
"Is Ditka driving?"
"Of course!"
"Then I like da Bear buss."
"DA BEARSSS BUSSSS"

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13067
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 06:40:34 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #263 on: May 14, 2021, 12:19:02 PM »

I highly doubt you'll see anything across the north leg of the Beltway (between 270 and 95).  Too much Rock Creek Park and right-of-way impact.  There's also the Navy and DoD saying a hard NO to using any of the Naval Hospital property, which would push even more impacts into Rock Creek Park.  These are also facts to face.

Completely agreed here (and while not perfect, the ICC does at least exist to bypass this segment), but I'm surprised the PG County portion was axed as well.  The PG opposition is much less vocal than Montgomery, and the beltway's existing ROW is noticeably wider in PG compared to Montgomery.

On the other hand, most of the PG portion doesn't seem to need it as much as Montgomery's, except perhaps when there's a bad accident (which, to be fair, isn't necessarily unusual).
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
óOlaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"óKolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:58 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #264 on: May 14, 2021, 02:03:28 PM »

I highly doubt you'll see anything across the north leg of the Beltway (between 270 and 95).  Too much Rock Creek Park and right-of-way impact.  There's also the Navy and DoD saying a hard NO to using any of the Naval Hospital property, which would push even more impacts into Rock Creek Park.  These are also facts to face.
There is one way to avoid those for the most part, though itís quite expensive.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:58 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #265 on: May 14, 2021, 02:38:40 PM »

Really, the two sections which truly need widening are from the spur to the bridge, and from 95 to 270. The rest isnít necessary.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10963
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #266 on: May 14, 2021, 02:49:28 PM »

I highly doubt you'll see anything across the north leg of the Beltway (between 270 and 95).  Too much Rock Creek Park and right-of-way impact.  There's also the Navy and DoD saying a hard NO to using any of the Naval Hospital property, which would push even more impacts into Rock Creek Park.  These are also facts to face.

I think you are correct, though I find it amusing that some of the same Montgomery County politicians that were involved in frantic opposition to MD-200 (ICC) less than 15 years ago are now saying that is the "alternative" to widening (never mind that they and their allies at the Sierra Club, M-ICC, 1,000 Friends of Maryland and Virginia's Piedmont Environmental Council used to repeat, over and over and over again, that MD-200 had no benefit for Capital Beltway drivers and would never have any benefit for Beltway drivers).

Regarding lands along the I-495 right-of-way, there's not much between the Mormon Temple and the big bridge over the Northwest Branch gorge, though there might be enough to do some minor work.

It's not Rock Creek Park itself that is the issue per-se but the funding source that paid to purchase the land -  the Capper-Cramton Act first enacted in 1930 and amended and expanded in 1946.  Much of the Capper-Cramton Act lands are not owned by the National Park Service (though some are), but by other public park agencies (all of Rock Creek Park in Maryland is owned by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission).  Still, the federal government has residual powers over these lands.  When I-495 was widened in the late 1980's and early 1990's to 4 lanes each way, MDOT/SHA was allowed to purchase some of the land from Rock Creek Park to make room between MD-355 and the temple.   But SHA also had to agree that they would not be able to widen beyond that, which means the only way to add capacity here is with a viaduct (probably in the median) similar to the one on I-110 (Harbor Freeway) in Los Angeles County, California.

And of course, Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 still applies. 

My own personal opinion about this is more radical.  Keep the 8 lanes (with some upgrades where possible), convert the entire top side of I-495 (maybe MD-187 to MD-650) to a priced roadway, with free passage to transit vehicles and HOV-3 traffic.  That would really put the politicians that were opposed to the added lanes on the spot.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 07:13:45 AM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10963
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #267 on: May 14, 2021, 02:52:33 PM »

Really, the two sections which truly need widening are from the spur to the bridge, and from 95 to 270. The rest isnít necessary.

I disagree, at least pre-COVID19.  The congestion levels along I-495 between I-95 and I-270 are terrible.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13067
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 06:40:34 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #268 on: May 14, 2021, 03:04:36 PM »

Really, the two sections which truly need widening are from the spur to the bridge, and from 95 to 270. The rest isnít necessary.

I disagree, at least pre-COVID19.  The congestion levels along I-495 between I-95 and I-270 are terrible.

No offense, but isn't that what famartin said? "[T]he two sections which truly need widening are from the spur to the bridge, and from 95 to 270."
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
óOlaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"óKolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10963
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #269 on: May 16, 2021, 08:26:45 PM »

Really, the two sections which truly need widening are from the spur to the bridge, and from 95 to 270. The rest isnít necessary.

I disagree, at least pre-COVID19.  The congestion levels along I-495 between I-95 and I-270 are terrible.

No offense, but isn't that what famartin said? "[T]he two sections which truly need widening are from the spur to the bridge, and from 95 to 270."

I should re-state that - what needs help is all the way from the American Legion Bridge to I-95, including the only remaining six-lane section, between I-270Y (Spur) and the interchange at I-270 and MD-355, where there is a section on the Inner Loop with only two lanes that is a reliable source of severe congestion.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:58 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #270 on: May 16, 2021, 10:03:03 PM »

Really, the two sections which truly need widening are from the spur to the bridge, and from 95 to 270. The rest isnít necessary.

I disagree, at least pre-COVID19.  The congestion levels along I-495 between I-95 and I-270 are terrible.

No offense, but isn't that what famartin said? "[T]he two sections which truly need widening are from the spur to the bridge, and from 95 to 270."

I should re-state that - what needs help is all the way from the American Legion Bridge to I-95, including the only remaining six-lane section, between I-270Y (Spur) and the interchange at I-270 and MD-355, where there is a section on the Inner Loop with only two lanes that is a reliable source of severe congestion.
The section between 270 and the spur can be left alone. That 2 lane section is really just at the 270/355 interchange which I include as needing help. But no need to widen the 6-lane section yet, the two 8 lane sections are worse (for obvious reasons: they are trying to push 3 lanes of beltway and 3 lanes of 270 into only 4 lanes of beltway in each direction)
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10963
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #271 on: May 16, 2021, 11:02:47 PM »

The section between 270 and the spur can be left alone. That 2 lane section is really just at the 270/355 interchange which I include as needing help. But no need to widen the 6-lane section yet, the two 8 lane sections are worse (for obvious reasons: they are trying to push 3 lanes of beltway and 3 lanes of 270 into only 4 lanes of beltway in each direction)

The section between MD-187 and MD-355/I-270 is crash prone in both directions due to sharp curves. 

Regarding the short two-lane section of the Inner Loop, it may be short, but the impacts of that lane drop can be felt several miles back, and there are frequent crashes (usually minor) when drivers use the exit to MD-355 south, then force their way back into Beltway traffic.  All of that should be corrected.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:58 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #272 on: May 16, 2021, 11:48:35 PM »

The section between 270 and the spur can be left alone. That 2 lane section is really just at the 270/355 interchange which I include as needing help. But no need to widen the 6-lane section yet, the two 8 lane sections are worse (for obvious reasons: they are trying to push 3 lanes of beltway and 3 lanes of 270 into only 4 lanes of beltway in each direction)

The section between MD-187 and MD-355/I-270 is crash prone in both directions due to sharp curves. 

I agree, but both curves are part of those respective interchanges, not integral to the mainline.

Regarding the short two-lane section of the Inner Loop, it may be short, but the impacts of that lane drop can be felt several miles back, and there are frequent crashes (usually minor) when drivers use the exit to MD-355 south, then force their way back into Beltway traffic.  All of that should be corrected.

I agree (in fact I was rear ended by someone trying to cut back in a few years ago).

The point Iím trying to make is that at each end of the two sections I mentioned, you have lane drops...

3 lanes of Sb 270 and 3 lanes of eb 495 squeezing into just 4 lanes.
4 lanes of wb 495 and 2 lanes of sb 95 squeezing into just 4 lanes.
3 lanes of sb 270 spur and 3 lanes of wb 495 squeezing into just 4 lanes of sb 495.
6 lanes of nb 495 in VA squeezing into 4 lanes of nb 495 in MD.

These need remediation most. The beltway should be 6 lanes each way in these areas, not trying to compress 6 lanes down to 4.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10963
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #273 on: May 17, 2021, 07:25:45 AM »

The point Iím trying to make is that at each end of the two sections I mentioned, you have lane drops...

3 lanes of Sb 270 and 3 lanes of eb 495 squeezing into just 4 lanes.
4 lanes of wb 495 and 2 lanes of sb 95 squeezing into just 4 lanes.
3 lanes of sb 270 spur and 3 lanes of wb 495 squeezing into just 4 lanes of sb 495.
6 lanes of nb 495 in VA squeezing into 4 lanes of nb 495 in MD.

These need remediation most. The beltway should be 6 lanes each way in these areas, not trying to compress 6 lanes down to 4.

There are several reasons why this is not likely to happen.

1.  Capper-Cramton Act lands that would need to be acquired  between MD-355 and the bridge that carries I-495 over Rock Creek - and there are at least two other places where Capper-Cramton Act lands would be needed in Montgomery County.

2. Other impacts on stream valley parks between MD-97 and MD-650.

3. No land available (without condemnation of homes) between Seminary Road and I-95 in several sections.

4. Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 applies in addition to the above.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:58 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #274 on: May 17, 2021, 11:28:33 AM »

The point Iím trying to make is that at each end of the two sections I mentioned, you have lane drops...

3 lanes of Sb 270 and 3 lanes of eb 495 squeezing into just 4 lanes.
4 lanes of wb 495 and 2 lanes of sb 95 squeezing into just 4 lanes.
3 lanes of sb 270 spur and 3 lanes of wb 495 squeezing into just 4 lanes of sb 495.
6 lanes of nb 495 in VA squeezing into 4 lanes of nb 495 in MD.

These need remediation most. The beltway should be 6 lanes each way in these areas, not trying to compress 6 lanes down to 4.

There are several reasons why this is not likely to happen.

1.  Capper-Cramton Act lands that would need to be acquired  between MD-355 and the bridge that carries I-495 over Rock Creek - and there are at least two other places where Capper-Cramton Act lands would be needed in Montgomery County.

2. Other impacts on stream valley parks between MD-97 and MD-650.

3. No land available (without condemnation of homes) between Seminary Road and I-95 in several sections.

4. Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 applies in addition to the above.
Didnít say it was going to happen. Just said it was the most in need. As mentioned a few days ago, if they fixed the section south of the 270 spur to the bridge, the 270-95 segment would become the hands-down worst part of the beltway, and only when that happens is there any hope (albeit not much) that it could get remedied.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.