How would the 1971 planned D.C. Interstate network have actually functioned?

[TheOneKEA]

A long time ago, I read with great interest the article on Scott Kozel's Roads to the Future on the 1971 D.C. Interstate network, located at http://www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Interstate_Fwy.html. One of the images included in the article (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Interstate_Map_XL.jpg) was an altered drawing of the D.C. street grid with the freeways and interchanges overlaid on it.

I've always wondered a number of things about this network, as proposed, and how it would have aged if it had been built to its fullest extent. These things include the following questions:
- Which segments of this network would be the busiest, and would they have been peak-flow busy, reverse-peak-flow busy or busy in both directions?
- How would Interchange B, between I-66, I-95, I-295 and US 50 have functioned? Which movements would have been the busiest and most likely to fail in the peaks?
- Would the segment of the Beltway between the two I-70S mainline legs have utterly collapsed in the peaks due to traffic backups caused by the road geometry?
- Was US 50 ever considered for an Interstate-standard upgrade out to the cloverleaf interchange with I-495? Would it have been an unsigned Interstate 3di extension of I-66?
- Would the entire system function at LOS E/F today if it had been completed?
- If this system had been proposed back in the early 60s, would more of it have been successfully constructed? Specifically, could we have seen a stub freeway segment of I-95 from the College Park Interchange to New Hampshire Avenue?

I'm really curious to know what the forum thinks, as I've always been curious to know how the combination of this freeway network, the Metro, and MARC/VRE would work and how different today's commuting flows in D.C. would be if this network was available. I'd also love to know how a 1970s-era freeway network of this size and complexity would have aged, and how the road and interchange geometries in the 1971 plan would be handled by today's drivers.

[US 41]

All I have to say is that DC would've had to have a bypass built. Downtown would get jammed up without one.

[NE2]

- Would the segment of the Beltway between the two I-70S mainline legs have utterly collapsed in the peaks due to traffic backups caused by the road geometry?

There were apparently plans to build a new alignment of the Beltway here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060514222246/http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg377a/22c.jpg
But it doesn't show up on a 1967 planning map that has a buttload of other unbuilt freeways. And http://ghostsofdc.org/2012/03/08/washingtons-circumferential-highway-fighting-over-the-capital-beltway/ seems to imply that this was an alternate alignment that was tossed when the route through Rock Creek Park was built.

[froggie]

For brevity, I'm going to go by route numbers and not the officially planned freeway names below, unless I need to specify otherwise.  For reference, the North Loop/K St Tunnel = I-66, 3rd St Tunnel = today's I-395, Northeast Freeway = I-95, North Central Freeway = I-70S, New York Ave Freeway = US 50, and East Loop = I-295.  Also, when I mention number of lanes, I'm including the total for both directions of travel.

- Which segments of this network would be the busiest, and would they have been peak-flow busy, reverse-peak-flow busy or busy in both directions?

I-95 by far.  Two segments of the Northeast Freeway (from I-66/today's I-395 up to where I-70S split off, separated by Interchange B) had traffic projections high enough to where they were the only two segments that were planned as 10 lanes.

Hard to say for your other question, as directional traffic flow information was not included in the 1971 study...just average daily traffic totals and general origin-destination trends.

- How would Interchange B, between I-66, I-95, I-295 and US 50 have functioned? Which movements would have been the busiest and most likely to fail in the peaks?

Nitpick:  Interchange B did not include I-66.  I-66 would have ended where the K St Tunnel met the 3rd St Tunnel.  Also, it was not planned as a full interchange...there were no ramps proposed between US 50 and I-95 North.  Judging from projected traffic volumes plus number of lanes, the movements most susceptible to congestion at Interchange B would have been the I-95 through lanes.

- Would the segment of the Beltway between the two I-70S mainline legs have utterly collapsed in the peaks due to traffic backups caused by the road geometry?

Yes, and this was even acknowledged in the 1971 study.  Two mitigating ideas were suggested in the 1971 study:  extending the North Central Freeway north of the Beltway to the Outer Beltway (today's ICC), or eliminate I-70S inside the Beltway.  The latter also would have addressed lane balance issues in Fort Totten where 6 lanes of I-70S and 8 lanes of I-95 would have merged into 10 total.

- Was US 50 ever considered for an Interstate-standard upgrade out to the cloverleaf interchange with I-495? Would it have been an unsigned Interstate 3di extension of I-66?

It might have been considered, but after the 1968 Howard-Cramer mileage was allocated by FHWA (pretty much done by 1969) and US 50 wasn't included, Interstate designation likely wasn't considered further.  It wasn't until much later (basically with ISTEA in 1991) where non-chargeable Interstate mileage became "en vogue".

- Would the entire system function at LOS E/F today if it had been completed?

The core radials likely would've had poor LOS, yes.  Furthermore, Metrorail construction/usage would have likely been slower/lower, and less development in the DC core would have been possible as keeping large parking lots for the huge additional influx of cars would have been necessary.

- If this system had been proposed back in the early 60s, would more of it have been successfully constructed? Specifically, could we have seen a stub freeway segment of I-95 from the College Park Interchange to New Hampshire Avenue?

FYI, the basics of this system were proposed before Ike signed the Federal Highway Act of 1956 that fully created the Interstate system, and refined further in the late 1950s, so your first question is moot.  As to your second question, I doubt it, as it was Maryland politics similar to the DC freeway cancellation that prevented such a freeway spur from being built.  The spur proposal lasted much longer than the DC freeway system did.

[TheOneKEA]

For brevity, I'm going to go by route numbers and not the officially planned freeway names below, unless I need to specify otherwise.  For reference, the North Loop/K St Tunnel = I-66, 3rd St Tunnel = today's I-395, Northeast Freeway = I-95, North Central Freeway = I-70S, New York Ave Freeway = US 50, and East Loop = I-295.  Also, when I mention number of lanes, I'm including the total for both directions of travel.

- Which segments of this network would be the busiest, and would they have been peak-flow busy, reverse-peak-flow busy or busy in both directions?

I-95 by far.  Two segments of the Northeast Freeway (from I-66/today's I-395 up to where I-70S split off, separated by Interchange B) had traffic projections high enough to where they were the only two segments that were planned as 10 lanes.

Hard to say for your other question, as directional traffic flow information was not included in the 1971 study...just average daily traffic totals and general origin-destination trends.

- How would Interchange B, between I-66, I-95, I-295 and US 50 have functioned? Which movements would have been the busiest and most likely to fail in the peaks?

Nitpick:  Interchange B did not include I-66.  I-66 would have ended where the K St Tunnel met the 3rd St Tunnel.  Also, it was not planned as a full interchange...there were no ramps proposed between US 50 and I-95 North.  Judging from projected traffic volumes plus number of lanes, the movements most susceptible to congestion at Interchange B would have been the I-95 through lanes.

- Would the segment of the Beltway between the two I-70S mainline legs have utterly collapsed in the peaks due to traffic backups caused by the road geometry?

Yes, and this was even acknowledged in the 1971 study.  Two mitigating ideas were suggested in the 1971 study:  extending the North Central Freeway north of the Beltway to the Outer Beltway (today's ICC), or eliminate I-70S inside the Beltway.  The latter also would have addressed lane balance issues in Fort Totten where 6 lanes of I-70S and 8 lanes of I-95 would have merged into 10 total.

I'd love to know the fate of the system had I-70S been eliminated from the start for that reason...

- Was US 50 ever considered for an Interstate-standard upgrade out to the cloverleaf interchange with I-495? Would it have been an unsigned Interstate 3di extension of I-66?

It might have been considered, but after the 1968 Howard-Cramer mileage was allocated by FHWA (pretty much done by 1969) and US 50 wasn't included, Interstate designation likely wasn't considered further.  It wasn't until much later (basically with ISTEA in 1991) where non-chargeable Interstate mileage became "en vogue".

- Would the entire system function at LOS E/F today if it had been completed?

The core radials likely would've had poor LOS, yes.  Furthermore, Metrorail construction/usage would have likely been slower/lower, and less development in the DC core would have been possible as keeping large parking lots for the huge additional influx of cars would have been necessary.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to learn about in discussing this freeway network. I instinctively knew that urban planning, land use and development and commuter flows would have been drastically different due to the widespread freeway access through the core of the District, especially if the freeways were built at the expense of the Metrorail network. I would be especially curious to know how the parking provision would have been made and how many of those new buildings going up in the District today would incorporate parking garages and the like.

- If this system had been proposed back in the early 60s, would more of it have been successfully constructed? Specifically, could we have seen a stub freeway segment of I-95 from the College Park Interchange to New Hampshire Avenue?

FYI, the basics of this system were proposed before Ike signed the Federal Highway Act of 1956 that fully created the Interstate system, and refined further in the late 1950s, so your first question is moot.  As to your second question, I doubt it, as it was Maryland politics similar to the DC freeway cancellation that prevented such a freeway spur from being built.  The spur proposal lasted much longer than the DC freeway system did.

This is all very fascinating information, especially the last part about the history of the network. I had no idea that the basics of this system were proposed that long ago; everything I had read on Roads to the Future suggested that there were a large number of proposals that looked radically different from the 1971 system, and which fomented considerable disquiet and opposition within the District and the areas affected by the freeway. I had assumed (wrongly) that the 1971 system came much later in an attempt to reduce that opposition.

I specifically asked about the I-95 stub because I feel that this is the only other part of the old system, other than I-66 through the District, that could be built today, despite the legal prohibition against it. Constructing that segment of the Northeast Freeway down to MD 650 would relieve traffic on US 1 by a significant amount and would drastically improve access to the University of Maryland.

[froggie]

I'd love to know the fate of the system had I-70S been eliminated from the start for that reason...

About the only real difference is that I-95 would have been built as a consistent 8 lanes from Interchange B up to the Beltway.

This is all very fascinating information, especially the last part about the history of the network. I had no idea that the basics of this system were proposed that long ago; everything I had read on Roads to the Future suggested that there were a large number of proposals that looked radically different from the 1971 system, and which fomented considerable disquiet and opposition within the District and the areas affected by the freeway. I had assumed (wrongly) that the 1971 system came much later in an attempt to reduce that opposition.

To be fair, there were several different iterations/changes made to the plan over the years.  But the basic gist of the plan remained more or less the same:  an "inner loop" in the DC core split by a "Center Leg" (i.e. today's 3rd St Tunnel), an "outer beltway" about 10 miles out (today's Beltway), and radials extending out from the inner loop to the outer beltway and beyond.  There was also an intermediate loop (Fort Drive or something along those lines) planned to connect the various old civil war forts within the District...that part of the plan basically died by the 1960s.

I specifically asked about the I-95 stub because I feel that this is the only other part of the old system, other than I-66 through the District, that could be built today, despite the legal prohibition against it. Constructing that segment of the Northeast Freeway down to MD 650 would relieve traffic on US 1 by a significant amount and would drastically improve access to the University of Maryland.

On the former, I disagree that I-66 through the District could be built today.  It might still be technically feasible, but the political and fiscal reality would prevent it.  Nevermind that what's needed in that area is a new Blue Line separated from the "Orange Crush" between Rosslyn and Foggy Bottom.

On the latter...that was the rationale used when attempts were made to pursue such a spur.  That is, until the Maryland General Assembly passed the legal prohibition.

[PColumbus73]

Either way, I think that DC is better off now than it would have been if the freeway plan were fully developed. Had the freeway system been built, then I think that traffic problems in the District would be worse, mixing freeways with DC's road network would be a mess.

[Henry]

Sometime in the mid-1970s, I-70S became I-270. Lots of people are still wondering why it was decided that I-70 would go to Baltimore and not Washington; probably because around the time that the unbuilt portions of the DC freeway network were cancelled, the I-70 extension was still in the planning stages until it, too, got cancelled in 1981.

[NE2]

Lots of people are still wondering why it was decided that I-70 would go to Baltimore and not Washington

[citation needed]

[mrsman]

In my case, I also wonder what DC would be like with the freeway system built as planned.  For one thing, it would make Sunday drives into the city a lot easier.
I live due north of the Capitol in Silver Spring (about 2 miles north of the Beltway).  There is really no good way to get into town without either driving down a street with lots of traffic lights (Georgia, 16th) or going quite a bit out of my way to reach either the GW, Clara Barton, or BW Parkways.  I-70S would have been a straight shot and very useful for off-peak driving.

I work downtown and currently take Metrorail.  Metrorail makes sense for me since as a federal employee, the federal government pays for my subway fare, but would not pay a dime toward parking.  If that were still the case had the freeway been built, I still would take Metrorail. 

[ARMOURERERIC]

What alot of the younger generation do not realize is that even into the late 1970's, DC was a MUCH smaller town.  My first trip to DC was in 1981, travelling with my dad to the Carpenter's Convention (where I saw Reagan get shot from about 30 feet away).  Coming down 270 on a Wednesday morning, there was no traffic at all until Montrose.  There was no real development after MD 28.  We took the Beltway over to Conneticut, and into to he Washington Hilton from there.  Again littler traffic at 8AM.  I actually moved to DC for my first job out of college in late 1985 when things were getting crazy.  I read in the post that in 1984, the DC area added 4.5 million jobs that year alone.  I would guess that at the time of the 1971 plan, the DC area probaly had 1/4 the population it has now.  When I first moved there, there was not much past Tenley Circle on Wisconsin, it was all filled in, but the density was very low.

[froggie]

Eric, I can understand your rationale, though to a more limited degree.  The core of the DC region (which I'm defining here as DC, PGC, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax Co) had a population of about 2.7 million in 1970.  The 2010 census had that same area at just under 3.7 million.  It should also be noted that the 1970 DC proper had 756K people, compared to about 601K in the 2010 census.  Lastly, you had a MUCH lower percentage of women in the workplace in 1970 than you do today.

[cpzilliacus]

[Snipped]

I've always wondered a number of things about this network, as proposed, and how it would have aged if it had been built to its fullest extent. These things include the following questions:
- Which segments of this network would be the busiest, and would they have been peak-flow busy, reverse-peak-flow busy or busy in both directions?
- How would Interchange B, between I-66, I-95, I-295 and US 50 have functioned? Which movements would have been the busiest and most likely to fail in the peaks?
- Would the segment of the Beltway between the two I-70S mainline legs have utterly collapsed in the peaks due to traffic backups caused by the road geometry?
- Was US 50 ever considered for an Interstate-standard upgrade out to the cloverleaf interchange with I-495? Would it have been an unsigned Interstate 3di extension of I-66?
- Would the entire system function at LOS E/F today if it had been completed?
- If this system had been proposed back in the early 60s, would more of it have been successfully constructed? Specifically, could we have seen a stub freeway segment of I-95 from the College Park Interchange to New Hampshire Avenue?

I'm really curious to know what the forum thinks, as I've always been curious to know how the combination of this freeway network, the Metro, and MARC/VRE would work and how different today's commuting flows in D.C. would be if this network was available. I'd also love to know how a 1970s-era freeway network of this size and complexity would have aged, and how the road and interchange geometries in the 1971 plan would be handled by today's drivers.

I am going off to Ron Kirby's funeral this afternoon, but I have thought a lot about this subject, which remains very controversial even today, and the District of Columbia's elected officials are probably still unanimously opposed to such a plan.

It should be noted that most of it was originally formulated before D.C. had even the "limited" Home Rule governance that it has had since 1974.  The Bureau of Public Roads (predecessor agency to the Federal Highway Administration) drew the maps with little little regard for the environmental impact of the network and no input from any "regular" D.C. citizens (the city was absolutely a colony ruled by Congress through the D.C. Board of Commissioners, which essentially answered to Chairs of the District of Columbia Committees of the House (especially) and Senate).  The chair of the House D.C. Committee up to the early 1970's was a (racist) Dixiecrat from South Carolina by the name of John Lanneau McMillan, which made it even easier for residents to oppose these plans - he was perfectly happy to bulldoze the neighborhoods of people of modest means - especially neighborhoods where most or all of the residents were African-American.

I am not going to give you specific answers about operation of those proposed freeways except to say that they would almost certainly have had routine Levels-of-service at "E" and "F" along some segments. 

As far as Metrorail is concerned, it did not and it could not provide peak commute period traffic congestion relief.  What Metrorail has done is to remove transit passengers from buses and put them into railcars running on steel rails.  Stated differently, Metro is not a replacement for freeway or other road capacity, even though that claim was repeatedly made as the freeways were cancelled and the D.C. Interstate construction money diverted to fund part of the rail system.

The bigger impact of removing the freeway network was in economic development.  Areas that were poor or on the edge of poverty have remained that way. Consider the West Hyattsville and Prince George's Plaza stations on the Green Line as two examples of neighborhoods that were "saved" by the cancellation of I-95.  Compare and contrast with the Orange Line stations in Arlington County. What's the difference in terms of transportation?  I-66 gives fast access to downtown D.C., and to Dulles and National Airports. 

There is another name for this - it is called the East-West Divide.  To the East is nearly all of Prince George's County, as well as Montgomery County east of Connecticut Avenue and north of Gaithersburg.  All of them have difficult access to downtown D.C. and poor access to Dulles and National (though the ICC has significantly improved highway and transit access to BWI for a large chunk of Montgomery County).  Compared to places west of the Divide, there's is little growth in private and even public-sector employment. 

[Mr. Matté]

Lots of people are still wondering why it was decided that I-70 would go to Baltimore and not Washington

[citation needed]

No, ^[who?] is required.

[froggie]

As far as Metrorail is concerned, it did not and it could not provide peak commute period traffic congestion relief.  What Metrorail has done is to remove transit passengers from buses and put them into railcars running on steel rails.  Stated differently, Metro is not a replacement for freeway or other road capacity, even though that claim was repeatedly made as the freeways were cancelled and the D.C. Interstate construction money diverted to fund part of the rail system.

I would disagree with that.  Plenty of Metrorail riders that would be driving otherwise....just look at how many have jumped ship back to driving with all of Metro's recent woes.


Regarding your comments on the east-west divide, that goes far beyond where the freeways were and weren't built.  Tysons could have just as easily happened where the John Hanson Hwy meets the Beltway.  Land use decisions, local politics, and local zoning have had just as much (if not more) impact on the divide.

[PColumbus73]

I think that DC's Metro system is pretty good at moving commuters in and out of the city. As long as the subway has reliable service, then it will definitely serve as an alternative to building freeways all over Washington. If a mass transit system has poor service, whether it be bus, subway, etc., that's when commuting by car becomes a better alternative.

[1995hoo]

I think that DC's Metro system is pretty good at moving commuters in and out of the city. As long as the subway has reliable service, then it will definitely serve as an alternative to building freeways all over Washington. If a mass transit system has poor service, whether it be bus, subway, etc., that's when commuting by car becomes a better alternative.

Reaction of many DC-area residents: 

[cpzilliacus]

As far as Metrorail is concerned, it did not and it could not provide peak commute period traffic congestion relief.  What Metrorail has done is to remove transit passengers from buses and put them into railcars running on steel rails.  Stated differently, Metro is not a replacement for freeway or other road capacity, even though that claim was repeatedly made as the freeways were cancelled and the D.C. Interstate construction money diverted to fund part of the rail system.

I would disagree with that.  Plenty of Metrorail riders that would be driving otherwise....just look at how many have jumped ship back to driving with all of Metro's recent woes.

The data say otherwise.  We have a timeseries of counts by mode for person movements entering the downtown area of the District of Columbia and Arlington County in the A.M. commute period that date back to 1975, the year before the first section of the Metro Red Line opened in March, 1976.  In aggregate, Metro did not lure people out of their motor vehicles and onto mass transit.  I can show you the data if you like, there's nothing secret about them.

Regarding your comments on the east-west divide, that goes far beyond where the freeways were and weren't built.  Tysons could have just as easily happened where the John Hanson Hwy meets the Beltway.  Land use decisions, local politics, and local zoning have had just as much (if not more) impact on the divide.

Politics (including the Prince George's County TRIM tax limitation), public schools (a long-dysfunctional Board of Education and a failed court-ordered busing plan that has made the public schools in the county much more segregated, not less), corruption (including names like Jack B. Johnson, his wife Leslie Johnson and (years earlier) Jesse S. Baggett (details from his unsuccessful appeal of the corruption conviction here)) have all damaged the county.  All were involved in taking bribes from developers - Baggett accepted money and gifts from a developer of garden apartments, a source of much misery and blight.  But highway access to airports (especially Dulles) and to big-spending federal agencies like the Department of Defense and the CIA have helped to make Northern Virginia, and especially the Dulles Toll Road corridor from Tysons Corner to Herndon, the success stories they are today. For those reasons, it is not likely that the New Carrollton area will ever become anything close to Tysons Corner.  The largest employer there now is the Internal Revenue Service, and it was placed there because of the influence of Rep. Steny Hoyer.

[1995hoo]

As far as Metrorail is concerned, it did not and it could not provide peak commute period traffic congestion relief.  What Metrorail has done is to remove transit passengers from buses and put them into railcars running on steel rails.  Stated differently, Metro is not a replacement for freeway or other road capacity, even though that claim was repeatedly made as the freeways were cancelled and the D.C. Interstate construction money diverted to fund part of the rail system.

I would disagree with that.  Plenty of Metrorail riders that would be driving otherwise....just look at how many have jumped ship back to driving with all of Metro's recent woes.

The data say otherwise.  We have a timeseries of counts by mode for person movements entering the downtown area of the District of Columbia and Arlington County in the A.M. commute period that date back to 1975, the year before the first section of the Metro Red Line opened in March, 1976.  In aggregate, Metro did not lure people out of their motor vehicles and onto mass transit.  I can show you the data if you like, there's nothing secret about them.

I live reasonably close to the Springfield Metro stop and I drop my wife there many mornings (Van Dorn is a little closer but takes longer to reach due to traffic). I used to use the Vienna stop when I lived near Fairfax City. Every time I look at those large parking garages, I try picturing what the roads would be like if all those additional vehicles were dumped onto the roads (much less the vehicles parked at other stops such as Huntington or New Carrollton). It's not a pretty picture. Note, also, that at Springfield there are a good number of people who park at Macy's and walk to the subway. The mall management allows commuter parking on certain levels of that garage, so a good number of people do that to save $4.75 a day. Can't say I blame them.

What irks me about the road/transit debate is that so many people on both sides view it as an "either/or" equation. I think that's unrealistic. Some level of each is needed.

[NE2]

Metrorail helps those who choose to let it help them. Suckers that drive and could take Metrorail have only themselves to blame.

[1995hoo]

Metrorail helps those who choose to let it help them. Suckers that drive and could take Metrorail have only themselves to blame.

I don't know about that. I'm heading downtown in a little while for the Capitals game tonight. I'll drive and I'll pick up Ms1995hoo at her office near the Kennedy Center en route to Verizon Center. Driving is faster in both directions, especially coming home, and in the end it costs right about the same:

Train fare for me to arena (rush hour) $5.35
Train fare for Ms1995hoo to arena (rush hour) $2.10
Train fare for both of us home (non-rush) $3.50 each = $7.00
Parking at Springfield Metro $4.75
Total Metro cost $19.20

Parking at garage downtown: $15.00
Roundtrip distance is 35 miles via the route I usually use, so (at highway speeds) that's a little over one gallon of gas at $3.50 a gallon.

Thus, the cost is pretty close to identical and the drive, especially on the trip home when the trains run less frequently, is substantially faster. How am I a "sucker" for driving instead?

Now, when it comes to commuting, there are dozens of variables that may make driving more attractive. For example, back when I was in school I had a summer job downtown near where my father worked. He had free parking. So I rode with him and we went HOV-2 on I-66, got downtown in about 25 minutes most mornings from just east of Fairfax City (versus an hour if we took the subway due to having to drive to the station, search for a parking space, park, walk to the train, wait for the train to leave, 35-minute ride to Federal Triangle, etc.). You'd be crazy not to drive in that situation. Later, when I came back to DC after graduating, the pre-tax parking subsidy if I drove to work was substantially higher than the pre-tax transit subsidy. Financially it made a lot more sense to drive.

Now, if you said the transit subsidy and parking subsidy should be closer in amount, I'd agree with that. I think the IRS set the regulations premised on the idea that it's "either/or," whereas certainly here in the DC area it's often "both": You drive to the Metro station and then ride that to work. Buses simply aren't a viable option for much of the white-collar workforce in downtown DC because a bus requires you to be able to adhere to a fixed schedule every day (not viable for many people) and because it requires the trains to run on time to get you there in time to catch the bus (also a perpetual problem with the DC Metrorail due to door problems, "sick passenger" delays, etc.).

NE2, I know you often just like to post in a manner that provokes people and I have no doubt this is another example of that. I have no idea how old you are or what you do for a living, so I have no information as to how much of the issues of commuting you've encountered on a day-to-day basis. Either way, though, your comment here smacks of the "either/or" mentality I decried in my prior comment. Saying "because you can take the subway, you must" is a silly argument because it ignores all the dozens of variables that impact people's lives. It's similar to the so-called "smart growth" advocates who spout slogans like "live near your job." That's not always viable either. For example, my parents are now retired, but when they worked, my father worked downtown and my mother worked near Centreville. They lived maybe halfway between the two. Seems to me that's the ideal way to choose where to live–although it played no role in the decision because my mom wasn't working there when they moved to their current house. Rather, they chose that house in large part because it ensured my brother and I would attend the correct junior high and high schools. Lots of parents here in Fairfax County choose where to live based on schools even if it means enduring a longer commute. That's another excellent example of why it's shortsighted to spout slogans when you don't know about all the other variables that factor into the equation.



Edited to add: BTW, my comments about going to the hockey game are premised on a normal night. A couple of years ago the Caps had a home game the same night as the Christmas tree lighting ceremony on the Ellipse. Traffic that night is always a disaster because of street closures due to the president making an appearance. That night, I rode the Metro and told Ms1995hoo where to meet me. That's an example of why I think having the option to drive or to ride public transit, whichever fits your needs on a given day, is very useful. My comment on buses reminds me of a further point that I do value the bus option because one of our cars is a 1988 RX-7. There have been times when I've had to leave it at the mechanic overnight while they find parts. In those situations, taking the subway and changing to a bus and then walking the last half-mile home is a very good backup to have available!

[cpzilliacus]

I live reasonably close to the Springfield Metro stop and I drop my wife there many mornings (Van Dorn is a little closer but takes longer to reach due to traffic). I used to use the Vienna stop when I lived near Fairfax City. Every time I look at those large parking garages, I try picturing what the roads would be like if all those additional vehicles were dumped onto the roads (much less the vehicles parked at other stops such as Huntington or New Carrollton). It's not a pretty picture. Note, also, that at Springfield there are a good number of people who park at Macy's and walk to the subway. The mall management allows commuter parking on certain levels of that garage, so a good number of people do that to save $4.75 a day. Can't say I blame them.

I know the areas all of those stations pretty well in spite of being a native and resident of the other side of the creek.

The impact on I-66 westbound traffic in the afternoons when the parking decks at Vienna (close to 5,200 spaces) start to clear out is pretty dramatic if you care to watch for a while.  It is also visible on I-370 west of "secret" Md. 200A [former eastern end of I-370] (which leads to the Shady Grove rail station, which has massive parking capacity, over 5,700 spaces) and on I-270 north of I-370. On Md. 200 (ICC) itself, the most-used section of the road is the one just east of Md. 200A, and I suspect that a fair amount of that morning traffic is headed for the Shady Grove rail station.  Less so (for reasons not entirely clear to me) on U.S. 50 eastbound east of New Carrollton (3,500 spaces). Also less so at Glenmont (3,000 spaces), perhaps because the end of the line is located close to two arterials, Md. 97 (Georgia Avenue) and Md. 182 (Layhill Road) with no radial freeways nearby.

The Blue Line to Franconia-Springfield (5,100 spaces) has to compete with I-95/I-395 HOV lanes going to "downtown" Arlington and D.C. - and when the HOV lanes are working, they are a fair bit faster than Metro.  Still, the parking there normally does fill up (parking capacity at the ends of all of the Metro lines is a constraint on rail system patronage, since so many people choose to drive to a rail station).   Even the most gargantuan surface lot on the system (at Greenbelt, 3,400 spaces) normally fills up.

What irks me about the road/transit debate is that so many people on both sides view it as an "either/or" equation. I think that's unrealistic. Some level of each is needed.

I strongly agree.  Especially trips to (older) areas with a lot of employment density, like downtown D.C. (in spite of the building height limitation) and commercial areas of Arlington County. Even more if the jobs are federal, since the government ends up funding much of the cost of fares and parking.

My problems start when I hear assertions that Metro can "replace" other modes of transportation, which it is clearly not capable of doing. 

Remember also that the data points for system usage I am talking about are not out near the outer limits of the system, but at (or close to) the "maximum load" points, always pretty close in (for instance, on the Blue and Yellow Lines, it is between Braddock Road and National Airport).

[1995hoo]

....

The Blue Line to Franconia-Springfield (5,100 spaces) has to compete with I-95/I-395 HOV lanes going to "downtown" Arlington and D.C. - and when the HOV lanes are working, they are a fair bit faster than Metro.  Still, the parking there normally does fill up (parking capacity at the ends of all of the Metro lines is a constraint on rail system patronage, since so many people choose to drive to a rail station).   Even the most gargantuan surface lot on the system (at Greenbelt, 3,400 spaces) normally fills up.

I was thinking about this earlier today when driving over there and it made me realize that even though we have the bus as an option, one reason we don't use it in the morning unless we have no choice is the time involved. The bus to the Van Dorn stop has to sit in the same traffic backup everyone else does, and the bus to Springfield takes way longer than driving due to the more convoluted route it follows so as to serve various neighborhoods.

Downtown DC was a bit of a mess last night. Seems there'd been a car fire on Constitution Avenue between 14th and 15th, but it caused problems as far away as Mount Vernon Square due to cascading backups and intersection-blocking. I found myself thinking about this thread and I thought to myself that incidents like that are the type that are going to cause problems regardless of whether they'd built the highways or not.

Aside from the freeways, it's interesting to note how various "deleted" parts of the street grid are being restored over time. G Street between 9th and 10th in front of the public library re-opened in the mid-2000s (it had been a pedestrian mall, but people avoided it due to the people who did frequent it). 10th Street between H and New York (where the old convention center was and the "City Center" project is under construction) looks ready to open any time now. That ought to help substantially with afternoon backups on New York Avenue if it diverts Virginia-bound traffic that now goes left on New York and right on 9th. I Street is also to open between 9th and the new piece of 10th (but it will not go all the way through to 11th Street next to the old Trailways station–instead, the right-of-way between 10th and 11th looks set to be a pedestrian mall). I'm interested in those streets opening since the garage we use for Caps games is on I Street between 8th and 9th. Might change our ingress/egress route. Funny thing, though–lately when we leave I've been heading east on Massachusetts Avenue and then using I-395-->I-695-->I-295-->I-495 to get home. It's been faster than our normal route through the 9th Street Tunnel and then down I-395 (especially since the HOV is closed most nights for construction).

[D-Dey65]

Either way, I think that DC is better off now than it would have been if the freeway plan were fully developed. Had the freeway system been built, then I think that traffic problems in the District would be worse, mixing freeways with DC's road network would be a mess.

Every driving experience I've had in the DC area clearly proves otherwise.

[ARMOURERERIC]

I wonder how the planned DC system would work if built today as a network of 4 lane HOT facilities.