News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-495 and I-270 Managed Lanes

Started by davewiecking, July 11, 2018, 11:41:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dirt Roads

Quote from: Plutonic Panda 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/

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.


cpzilliacus

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

"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

Quote from: jmacswimmer on February 18, 2021, 04:40:31 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").

cpzilliacus

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

QuoteMaryland 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 company's dominance in the Washington region.

QuoteIf 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 nation's capital – 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.
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

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

QuoteThe 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 dollars' worth of toll lanes for the Capital Beltway and Interstate 270.

QuoteMDOT wouldn't say Wednesday which company or companies filed the protest or what wrongdoing is alleged. It also declined to release the protest filing.

QuoteExperts 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.

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

New Recommended Preferred Alternative to Deliver Phase 1 South: American Legion Bridge I-270 to I-370
QuoteAfter 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.

cpzilliacus

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

QuoteBowing 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.

QuoteThe changes are reflected in a "new recommended preferred alternative"  to the planned construction of toll lanes on the Capital Beltway (I-495) and Interstate 270.

QuoteUnder 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.
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

Well that sucks but I'm not surprised these days

famartin

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 13, 2021, 05:09:23 PM
Well that sucks but I'm 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.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: famartin on May 14, 2021, 12:38:24 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 13, 2021, 05:09:23 PM
Well that sucks but I'm 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.
That's kind of what I was thinking as well. Maybe once it's done the cancelled section will come back.

froggie

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.

jmacswimmer

Quote from: froggie 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.

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.
"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

Quote from: jmacswimmer on May 14, 2021, 11:59:01 AM
Quote from: froggie 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.

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).
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf 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?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

famartin

Quote from: froggie 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.
There is one way to avoid those for the most part, though it's quite expensive.

famartin

Really, the two sections which truly need widening are from the spur to the bridge, and from 95 to 270. The rest isn't necessary.

cpzilliacus

#266
Quote from: froggie 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.

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.
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

Quote from: famartin 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 isn't necessary.

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

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 14, 2021, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: famartin 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 isn't 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."
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf 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?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: 1995hoo on May 14, 2021, 03:04:36 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 14, 2021, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: famartin 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 isn't 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.
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

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 16, 2021, 08:26:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 14, 2021, 03:04:36 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 14, 2021, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: famartin 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 isn't 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)

cpzilliacus

Quote from: famartin on May 16, 2021, 10:03:03 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.
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

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 16, 2021, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 16, 2021, 10:03:03 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.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 16, 2021, 11:02:47 PM
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 I'm 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.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: famartin on May 16, 2021, 11:48:35 PM
The point I'm 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.
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

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 17, 2021, 07:25:45 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 16, 2021, 11:48:35 PM
The point I'm 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.
Didn't 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.



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.