AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program  (Read 36446 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6973
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:17:42 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #225 on: January 04, 2020, 04:04:25 PM »

Although during rush hour its 1 HOV lane, 3 thru lanes, and 2 local lanes. So yes while technically they're removing a general-purpose lane during non-peak hours, during rush hour they're really not. This is similar to what Virginia is doing currently on I-66 and I honestly don't mind it.
My thing was mainly regarding eliminating the local-thru setup, which allows local traffic to use a separate roadway from thru traffic.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 696
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 08:16:55 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #226 on: January 04, 2020, 04:09:13 PM »

Although during rush hour its 1 HOV lane, 3 thru lanes, and 2 local lanes. So yes while technically they're removing a general-purpose lane during non-peak hours, during rush hour they're really not. This is similar to what Virginia is doing currently on I-66 and I honestly don't mind it.
My thing was mainly regarding eliminating the local-thru setup, which allows local traffic to use a separate roadway from thru traffic.
Based on my experience, it operates more like a C/D roadway than a local roadway.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6973
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:17:42 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #227 on: January 04, 2020, 04:10:03 PM »

Although during rush hour its 1 HOV lane, 3 thru lanes, and 2 local lanes. So yes while technically they're removing a general-purpose lane during non-peak hours, during rush hour they're really not. This is similar to what Virginia is doing currently on I-66 and I honestly don't mind it.
My thing was mainly regarding eliminating the local-thru setup, which allows local traffic to use a separate roadway from thru traffic.
Based on my experience, it operates more like a C/D roadway than a local roadway.
Either way, the toll lane project will eliminate that C/D setup.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #228 on: January 06, 2020, 12:49:11 AM »

Hogan secures key vote to revive deal advancing highway toll lanes project

Quote
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan has secured key support on a deal that would put a multibillion-dollar project to build toll lanes on the Beltway and Interstate 270 back on track, the governor’s office announced Friday.

Quote
The deal would advance an initial phase of the project involving the American Legion Bridge, a western stretch of the Beltway and the lower section of I-270. It also underscores that the state will not acquire properties lying in the path of the proposed new lanes until building of the lanes has been approved, and it includes earlier funding for transit in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties.

Quote
The highway project would be one of the nation’s largest public-private partnerships.
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: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #229 on: February 14, 2020, 11:26:39 AM »

[Commentary] Reason Foundation: The Misguided Efforts to Derail Maryland’s I-270 and I-495 Toll Projects - Drivers would get congestion relief, transit riders would get new high-quality bus service, and taxpayers wouldn't have to fund the projects.

Quote
Infrastructure projects where almost everyone gets a win are, unfortunately, relatively few and far between. But that’s exactly what the I-270 and I-495 Maryland managed lanes projects are: Drivers get congestion relief; transit riders get new high-quality bus service; and, taxpayers don’t have to pay for the project unless they choose to use the lanes—since drivers using the managed lanes will pay tolls that fund the entire cost of the project.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 11:29:15 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.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11907
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:54 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #230 on: February 14, 2020, 04:01:04 PM »

The author presumes that toll money would fully pay for the lanes.  That itself is misguided.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6973
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:17:42 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #231 on: February 14, 2020, 04:27:29 PM »

The author presumes that toll money would fully pay for the lanes.  That itself is misguided.
The taxpayers do benefit though as there will be some congestion relief in the general purpose lanes.

The use of tax dollars to subsidize toll funding should also result in lower toll rates... but we see how well that's worked.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #232 on: July 11, 2020, 01:09:54 PM »

MDOT/SHA Web site for the P3 project (not sure this has been posted before): I-270 & I-495 Managed Lanes Study

I-495 & I-270  MANAGED LANES STUDY Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f ) Evaluation June 2020  Note: Large PDF document (about 23 mb) - high-speed and robust network connection suggested.

DCIST: Maryland Publishes 18,000-page Environmental Impact Assessment Of Proposed I-270 And I-495 Expansion

Quote
The state of Maryland has released its long-awaited draft environmental impact assessment for the Hogan administration’s controversial Beltway expansion project.

Quote
The report examines the effects a range of possible design options for widening parts of I-495 and I-270 in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties would have on air quality, water quality, wetlands, wildlife, environmental justice, parks and historical sites, and more. The state has been working on the review since 2018. It is 18,000 pages long, including associated technical reports.

Quote
The additional highway lanes would be express toll lanes or high-occupancy toll lanes, meaning that drivers using them would pay extra to drive in the less-congested lanes. The project has an estimated $11 billion price tag and would be built as part of a public-private partnership.

Quote
The project already passed an important milestone in January, when a revised plan for it was approved by the state’s Board of Public Works, over the objections of some environmental advocates, who wanted the environmental impact study to be completed before the Board approved the plans.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2020, 01:27:52 PM 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.

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3512
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: September 15, 2021, 06:36:07 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #233 on: July 11, 2020, 11:35:08 PM »

18,000 pages!   :wow
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #234 on: July 12, 2020, 10:01:44 AM »

18,000 pages!   :wow

The one for the ICC was bigger.
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: 918
  • *DING, DONG* Doors, Closing!

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 09:00:28 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #235 on: July 22, 2020, 02:12:35 PM »

All 4 teams that responded to the RFQ have now been shortlisted by the state:

https://www.enr.com/articles/49743-maryland-shortlists-four-teams-for-planned-11b-p3-highway-project
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"

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #236 on: September 20, 2020, 08:14:25 AM »

Washington Post op-ed: Pandemic aside, Maryland needs to widen I-270 and I-495

Quote
The year 2020 has brought many unexpected and mostly unwelcome changes to the D.C. area. However, despite the uncertainty and confusion that have resulted, there has been one unfortunate constant: dithering by our elected officials on traffic solutions.

Quote
The latest in our traffic-plagued saga is the publishing and bickering over the environmental impact study on the widening of Interstate 270 and Interstate 495 proposed by Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R). The nearly 18,000-page study is not only a mind-numbing read, but its bureaucratic red tape and environmentalist pandering are also insulting. To give context, the U.S. tax code is approximately 6,500 pages long. Are we to believe a 40-mile stretch of roadway is more complex than the entire U.S. tax code?
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: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #237 on: September 20, 2020, 08:19:12 AM »

Bethesda Magazine: Elrich suggests state should go back to ‘drawing board’ on I-495/I-270 widening project

Quote
As the county executive’s office and County Council work to submit their formal response this fall to the recently released draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the I-495/I-270 widening project, County Executive Marc Elrich had some preliminary advice Thursday for state officials: Go back to the “drawing board.”

Quote
Saying that “we are not supporting going forward as it stands right now,” Elrich complained that “the state has structured this as an all-or-nothing project. By ruling out transit and other alternatives, it’s left us with either you support toll lanes or you don’t support doing anything. And this sets the project up…to be in opposition to what most of the public thinks should be done right now.”
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.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14425
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:40:02 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #238 on: September 20, 2020, 12:45:43 PM »

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:19:23 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #239 on: November 23, 2020, 11:51:23 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 Navy’s part promoting mass transit which I’m calling bull on. This project is sorely needed so I hope it doesn’t die or get scaled back. My guess is the Navy simply isn’t keen on losing any property and that’s what it is about.

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

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11907
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:54 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #240 on: November 24, 2020, 12:33:17 AM »

It is not so much the Navy "promoting mass transit" as you assert as it is Navy calling SHA to task for not studying transit alternatives as modern practice generally requires.  But you are correct on one big thing, and the main reason for the letter:  the Navy has no interest in ceding property for the project, which would compromise some of NSA Bethesda's force protection requirements.

And, short of an Act of Congress or the Pentagon overruling the Navy, they are not required to cede or sell anything to SHA.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 696
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 08:16:55 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #241 on: November 24, 2020, 12:58:15 AM »

It is not so much the Navy "promoting mass transit" as you assert as it is Navy calling SHA to task for not studying transit alternatives as modern practice generally requires.  But you are correct on one big thing, and the main reason for the letter:  the Navy has no interest in ceding property for the project, which would compromise some of NSA Bethesda's force protection requirements.

And, short of an Act of Congress or the Pentagon overruling the Navy, they are not required to cede or sell anything to SHA.

I'm guessing ramp realignments for the project would make it hard to accomplish without some Navy land?
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11907
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:54 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #242 on: November 24, 2020, 01:05:56 AM »

^ MAYBE an indirect impact on the Inner Loop exit to Connecticut Ave, but otherwise the Navy land is far enough away from interchanges.

The main thing is that location on the Beltway is a narrow chokepoint.  SHA was probably trying to avoid pushing the Beltway any closer to Rock Creek (which has historical and Section 104(f) protections) than it needed to.  Unfortunately for them, at this spot it would mean encroaching on Navy property.  There's only about 400 feet between the base perimeter road and Rock Creek there.
Logged

Dirt Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1002
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 05:51:50 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #243 on: November 24, 2020, 09:17:28 AM »

^ MAYBE an indirect impact on the Inner Loop exit to Connecticut Ave, but otherwise the Navy land is far enough away from interchanges.

The main thing is that location on the Beltway is a narrow chokepoint.  SHA was probably trying to avoid pushing the Beltway any closer to Rock Creek (which has historical and Section 104(f) protections) than it needed to.  Unfortunately for them, at this spot it would mean encroaching on Navy property.  There's only about 400 feet between the base perimeter road and Rock Creek there.

The NSWC facility in Carderock has already been impacted several times by the widening of I-495 and related improvements to Clara Barton Parkway.  It's pretty crowded right there at the Potomac crossing, and probably has more environmental and cultural impacts than a new river crossing further out.  Used to bicycle that section of the C&O Canal several times a week.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #244 on: December 30, 2020, 07:39:56 AM »

The main thing is that location on the Beltway is a narrow chokepoint.  SHA was probably trying to avoid pushing the Beltway any closer to Rock Creek (which has historical and Section 104(f) protections) than it needed to.  Unfortunately for them, at this spot it would mean encroaching on Navy property.  There's only about 400 feet between the base perimeter road and Rock Creek there.

When the Circumferential Highway (Capital Beltway now) was being planned and engineered, laws like NEPA, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (and other federal environmental laws) were not on the books.

What was on the books then was the Capper-Cramton Act, relevant since much of Rock Creek Park in Maryland is land purchased with Capper Cramton funding.  That, combined with NIMBY opposition by Montgomery County residents in the Chevy Chase area, is why the part of the road that now runs in Rock Creek Park was one of the very last to be completed, and is why the road has so many sharp (for an Interstate) curves.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2020, 07:44:36 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: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #245 on: December 30, 2020, 07:42:13 AM »

WTOP Radio: MDOT accelerates timetable for next steps on Beltway widening project

Quote
While Maryland residents and elected officials scurried around in preparation for the holidays last week, the state Department of Transportation quietly took a major step in its $11 billion I-495/I-270 “managed lanes” highway project.

Quote
With no notice to the public, the agency issued its formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for the project late on Friday, Dec. 18. The four giant transportation consortiums that have formed to bid on the massive project were given three business days to return the “technical” portion of their responses. (Financial responses are due on Jan. 8.)

Quote
MDOT then slipped the RFP onto its website in the early evening hours of Dec. 23, after employees had gone home for the long holiday weekend.

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: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #246 on: December 30, 2020, 07:49:30 AM »

The NSWC facility in Carderock has already been impacted several times by the widening of I-495 and related improvements to Clara Barton Parkway.  It's pretty crowded right there at the Potomac crossing, and probably has more environmental and cultural impacts than a new river crossing further out.  Used to bicycle that section of the C&O Canal several times a week.

Not that much.  My Dad worked at what is now NWSC Carderock (f/k/a David Taylor Model Basin and f/k/a Naval Ship Research and Development Center) for nearly 40 years.  The Beltway and the Clara Barton Parkway did not impact the important (and not possible to move) assets on the campus at all (they can be seen on Google here).  The long building running roughly east-west is the truly priceless asset here (see Atlas Obscura article with images from inside here), as is the structure on the left of the image near the west end of the Clara Barton. 
« Last Edit: December 30, 2020, 11:57:37 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.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11907
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:54 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #247 on: December 30, 2020, 10:04:26 AM »

The main thing is that location on the Beltway is a narrow chokepoint.  SHA was probably trying to avoid pushing the Beltway any closer to Rock Creek (which has historical and Section 104(f) protections) than it needed to.  Unfortunately for them, at this spot it would mean encroaching on Navy property.  There's only about 400 feet between the base perimeter road and Rock Creek there.

When the Circumferential Highway (Capital Beltway now) was being planned and engineered, laws like NEPA, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (and other federal environmental laws) were not on the books.

I was specifically referring to the current widening plans, which push the Beltway into the aforementioned Navy property.  Section 4(f) may not have existed when the Beltway was built, but it certainly exists now.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11074
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:15 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #248 on: December 30, 2020, 11:42:07 AM »

I was specifically referring to the current widening plans, which push the Beltway into the aforementioned Navy property.  Section 4(f) may not have existed when the Beltway was built, but it certainly exists now.

I am not at all sure that Section 4(f) is relevant, since the NSA Bethesda site is a military base and not a park.  Now there may be structures on the NSA Bethesda site that are on National Register (the attractive Bethesda Naval Hospital Tower facing MD-355 is) but it sits rather far from the Beltway (and presumably Beltway impacts).

Atlas Obscura has an article about the tower here with some interesting history.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2020, 11:54:14 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.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11907
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:54 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #249 on: December 30, 2020, 12:00:54 PM »

I think you misunderstood me.  I was referring to how Section 4(f) may be why SHA is pushing the widening towards the Navy side of the Beltway instead of closer to Rock Creek proper.
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.