Virginia

[froggie]

Wow, Peter, tell us how you REALLY feel about the Gov and candidates...

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post op-ed/blog: Virginia's road-planning disaster

It is curious how the drums are being beaten loudly for more truck traffic related to Dulles International Airport in a part of the metropolitan area that is already overwhelmed with traffic congestion.

It's little more than a marketing campaign for the Bi-County Parkway that would link the airport with Interstate 66, which would send ill-considered sprawl in a new direction while adding thousands more trucks, making roads more clogged than they are.

Well, the airplane has been out of the hangar a little too long for Dulles.

[jeffandnicole]

Washington Post op-ed/blog: Virginia's road-planning disaster

It's little more than a marketing campaign for the Bi-County Parkway that would link the airport with Interstate 66, which would send ill-considered sprawl in a new direction while adding thousands more trucks, making roads more clogged than they are.

Unless the land has been spoken for as open space/farming/undeveloper, etc, would the land become developed regardless of this above issue?

[cpzilliacus]

Unless the land has been spoken for as open space/farming/undeveloper, etc, would the land become developed regardless of this above issue?

Eventually, I believe the answer is yes.  The secondary roads are already  there, though many of them secondary  and primary roads are at or over capacity now.

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post op-ed: Virginia can't create demand at Dulles

If a shrinking number of people want to fly in and out of an airport, is the solution to spend a billion dollars to build a road there? Or is the better approach to build infrastructure where people do want to go?

The former doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but that's exactly what we're hearing from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) and Virginia officials about the proposed Bi-County Parkway.

The Post explored the question in the July 14 Metro article "Could a Pr. William-Loudoun road revive Dulles?"  The basic issue is that people seem more eager to fly in and out of Reagan National Airport than Dulles. Congress recently added exemptions to Reagan's perimeter rule that has allowed for airlines to add more long-distance flights, helping to spur a 5 percent increase in passenger traffic last year. Meanwhile, Dulles saw 2 percent growth in international traffic, but domestic traffic dropped 8 percent.

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post:  Bi-County Parkway in Virginia will add congestion, groups argue

A coalition of groups critical of the proposed Bi-County Parkway has released a report it says bolsters its case that the roadway could worsen traffic congestion in Loudoun and Prince William counties.

Norman L. Marshall, president of Smart Mobility, which conducted the analysis using data from the Virginia Department of Transportation, said the north-south roadway would create new bottlenecks.

"Building the [Bi-County Parkway] would generate more overall traffic – and more north-south travel – in the study area than would be the case if the [Bi-County Parkway] is not built,"  the report said.

The study, released last week, is the latest in the back-and-forth battle over the proposed parkway, which would provide a north-south connection between Loudoun and Prince William counties. Supporters of the roadway say it is needed to accommodate future population growth and promote economic development.

"We're not just talking about the present, we're talking about the future,"  said Bob Chase, head of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, which backs the road. "The best way to ensure that more people in this region have shorter commutes is to provide more jobs closer to where people live and have a grid that gives them a chance to move north, south, east and west."

[dfnva]

Washington Post:  Bi-County Parkway in Virginia will add congestion, groups argue

A coalition of groups critical of the proposed Bi-County Parkway has released a report it says bolsters its case that the roadway could worsen traffic congestion in Loudoun and Prince William counties.

Norman L. Marshall, president of Smart Mobility, which conducted the analysis using data from the Virginia Department of Transportation, said the north-south roadway would create new bottlenecks.

"Building the [Bi-County Parkway] would generate more overall traffic – and more north-south travel – in the study area than would be the case if the [Bi-County Parkway] is not built,"  the report said.

The study, released last week, is the latest in the back-and-forth battle over the proposed parkway, which would provide a north-south connection between Loudoun and Prince William counties. Supporters of the roadway say it is needed to accommodate future population growth and promote economic development.

"We're not just talking about the present, we're talking about the future,"  said Bob Chase, head of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, which backs the road. "The best way to ensure that more people in this region have shorter commutes is to provide more jobs closer to where people live and have a grid that gives them a chance to move north, south, east and west."

I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

[froggie]

Bi-County Parkway is much needed.

Disagree for the most part.  A 2-lane extension of the 234 bypass to get around the park would be useful so that NPS can have 234 closed through the park (a goal of theirs).  Otherwise, it'll make a bad situation on 66 a lot worse.  Also note that VDOT and supporters keep changing their tune as to why they want the road built...a strong sign that it's not really for congestion relief.

Aside from the above-mentioned battlefield bypass, before they spend one dime on the Bi-County Parkway, they should spend the money on improving 66.  Period.  No ifs-ands-or-buts.  East-west is where the real traffic problems west of the Beltway are...not north-south.  Eliminating some of the signals along 7 and 50 would be a plus too.

If you really want to sink money into a north-south route, why not improve 28 or the Fairfax County Parkway?  That's where the people and traffic are, after all...

[NE2]

why not improve 28?

Because I-366.

[cpzilliacus]

Bi-County Parkway is much needed.

Disagree for the most part.  A 2-lane extension of the 234 bypass to get around the park would be useful so that NPS can have 234 closed through the park (a goal of theirs).  Otherwise, it'll make a bad situation on 66 a lot worse.  Also note that VDOT and supporters keep changing their tune as to why they want the road built...a strong sign that it's not really for congestion relief.

Getting Va. 234 (and U.S. 29) traffic out of the park is a reasonable and worthy  goal.  But those opposed to all highway improvements would rather keep the status quo (though they don't come right out and say that), because a new road might be better (and as they would like everyone to believe) might "induce" traffic.

Aside from the above-mentioned battlefield bypass, before they spend one dime on the Bi-County Parkway, they should spend the money on improving 66.  Period.  No ifs-ands-or-buts.  East-west is where the real traffic problems west of the Beltway are...not north-south.  Eliminating some of the signals along 7 and 50 would be a plus too.

If it was your decision, what would you do to improve performance on I-66?

If you really want to sink money into a north-south route, why not improve 28 or the Fairfax County Parkway?  That's where the people and traffic are, after all...

Getting rid of the remaining at-grade signalized intersections along Va. 28 between I-66 and U.S. 50 also seems like a worthy (and probably not that expensive) goal, in part because I believe the room is there.

[cpzilliacus]

I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.

[1995hoo]

I believe the NVTA plans some improvements to Route 28, but I'm not sure what other than that an interchange at Braddock is not planned.

[mtfallsmikey]

I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.

Was that road part of the original master D.C. Metro hub-and-spoke plan, from the early 60's?

[1995hoo]

I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.

Was that road part of the original master D.C. Metro hub-and-spoke plan, from the early 60's?

I believe so. Forum member "NE2" found an archived copy of Scott Kozel's subsite about that plan (someone else had built the subsite and Kozel hosted it for him). Click the link below and then look under "History and Maps."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081207055023/http://www.roadstothefuture.com/roadsnova/

[mtfallsmikey]

I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.

Was that road part of the original master D.C. Metro hub-and-spoke plan, from the early 60's?

I believe so. Forum member "NE2" found an archived copy of Scott Kozel's subsite about that plan (someone else had built the subsite and Kozel hosted it for him). Click the link below and then look under "History and Maps."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081207055023/http://www.roadstothefuture.com/roadsnova/

I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.

Was that road part of the original master D.C. Metro hub-and-spoke plan, from the early 60's?

I believe so. Forum member "NE2" found an archived copy of Scott Kozel's subsite about that plan (someone else had built the subsite and Kozel hosted it for him). Click the link below and then look under "History and Maps."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081207055023/http://www.roadstothefuture.com/roadsnova/

That's not the one, but parts of it are included. There was an article in the WaPo Mag. some years ago, that was devoted to it, the Inner/Outer Beltways, how SE D.C. was going to be virtually paved over with the D.C. Inner Beltway. The "spokes" from the Inner Beltway were going to connect to the (2?)Outer Beltway(s), plan was developed either slightly before/after 1960.

As far as the Bi-County Pkwy goes....looks like a small part of what was the 'ol Western Bypass, planned to go from near F-Burg to the Balt. Beltway....?

[mtfallsmikey]

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Interstate_Fwy.html

Not as extensive as the WaPo Mag. article was ( which I could not find), but has the basic plan...the article was more about how the inner city population was going to be dispersed.

[1995hoo]

If you're referring to Bob Levey's article in the Post Magazine, that article's credibility has been severely rebutted several times. That's not to say he didn't have some valid points about the deleterious effects some of the proposed highways would have had on several DC neighborhoods, mind you. But he severely exaggerated the amount of "paving over" that would have taken place.

[mtfallsmikey]

If you're referring to Bob Levey's article in the Post Magazine, that article's credibility has been severely rebutted several times. That's not to say he didn't have some valid points about the deleterious effects some of the proposed highways would have had on several DC neighborhoods, mind you. But he severely exaggerated the amount of "paving over" that would have taken place.

That is it. I remember the paving over bit was the main focus of the article. So what were the issues with the credibility of the piece?  Is it still in WaPo's archives?

[1995hoo]

If you're referring to Bob Levey's article in the Post Magazine, that article's credibility has been severely rebutted several times. That's not to say he didn't have some valid points about the deleterious effects some of the proposed highways would have had on several DC neighborhoods, mind you. But he severely exaggerated the amount of "paving over" that would have taken place.

That is it. I remember the paving over bit was the main focus of the article. So what were the issues with the credibility of the piece?  Is it still in WaPo's archives?

I don't know whether it's still available. One major criticism I recall being levelled is that Levey cited some number of square miles of parkland that would have been paved over for Interstate highways and critics showed that the figure was equal to the entire square mileage of the ORIGINAL District of Columbia (pre-retrocession of the Virginia side in 1847).

I did a Google search and found that Doug Willinger and Scott Kozel did a pretty thorough analysis of Levey's claims:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/bob-and-jane-levey-refuted.html

[froggie]

On my to-do list is creating a map showing the freeway corridors that were proposed in the late 1960s.  The idea for the "Monticello Freeway" may have started sooner, but it was in the 1969 Northern Virginia Major Thoroughfare Plan that it was extensively documented (and platted out too).  There was also a DeLew Cather and Associates report from 1971 on the DC Interstates and the 1967 Master Plan of Highways for both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in Maryland.  Earlier DC plans from the 1950s showed a more extensive system of freeways and parkways within the DC core, but I have less verifiable information sources on what that system was, plus some of those early maps didn't clarify whether a route was going to be a full freeway, a parkway, or an at-grade partial-access arterial.

[mtfallsmikey]

On my to-do list is creating a map showing the freeway corridors that were proposed in the late 1960s.  The idea for the "Monticello Freeway" may have started sooner, but it was in the 1969 Northern Virginia Major Thoroughfare Plan that it was extensively documented (and platted out too).  There was also a DeLew Cather and Associates report from 1971 on the DC Interstates and the 1967 Master Plan of Highways for both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in Maryland.  Earlier DC plans from the 1950s showed a more extensive system of freeways and parkways within the DC core, but I have less verifiable information sources on what that system was, plus some of those early maps didn't clarify whether a route was going to be a full freeway, a parkway, or an at-grade partial-access arterial.

As I remember about the 2000 article in the Post Mag, the most interesting thing about it IMO were the maps/drawings that accompanied the article. That project you are describing, creating that map, would be awesome, especially combined with the old original maps, please proceed!

[froggie]

If it was your decision, what would you do to improve performance on I-66?

Optimally, about $3 billion worth.  In no particular order, extend the Orange Line to at least Fair Oaks, improved VRE service along the Manassas Line (with an extension to Haymarket), a 2-lane barrier-separated HOV facility from the Beltway to at least Centreville, implode the interchange at 28 and start over, a flyover from EB 66 to NB 7100 (nee 286), a consistent and permanent 4 lanes each way from Gainesville to the Beltway (IMO, Gainesville to 15 at Haymarket only needs 6 lanes, not 8), and auxiliary lanes between the Beltway and Nutley, between 123 and 50, and between 7100 and 29/Centreville.

A more realistic, more limited build would include VRE, a new interchange at 28, auxiliary lanes between 28 and 7100, the 7100 flyover, and 8 permanent lanes (thus restoring the shoulder) from Fair Oaks to the Beltway.

[cpzilliacus]

A more realistic, more limited build would include VRE, a new interchange at 28, auxiliary lanes between 28 and 7100, the 7100 flyover, and 8 permanent lanes (thus restoring the shoulder) from Fair Oaks to the Beltway.

If current patronage on VRE is any guide, that is not going to divert very many trips - and none at all going to Tysons Corner, since VRE does not serve that destination.

That is what VDOT is proposing to do with a new  I-66 Active Traffic Management System.

See the video here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZZKhaLRzI

Because there are no lanes added (at least as part of this project), it should be  (in relative terms) pretty cheap  to implement.  Though I really dislike the idea of not having shoulders.

[froggie]

If current patronage on VRE is any guide, that is not going to divert very many trips - and none at all going to Tysons Corner, since VRE does not serve that destination.

Disagree.  It'll divert trips...that same "VRE patronage" shows it to be pretty popular and crowded.  Problem is there's a huge amount of latent demand on I-66, so that whatever gets diverted will refill very quickly.  Doesn't mean VRE expansion shouldn't be done (it very much should).  Giving people options is just as important as "adding capacity".

[cpzilliacus]

If current patronage on VRE is any guide, that is not going to divert very many trips - and none at all going to Tysons Corner, since VRE does not serve that destination.

Disagree.  It'll divert trips...that same "VRE patronage" shows it to be pretty popular and crowded.

VRE can divert some trips (and it's doing it now).  But since the boardings for both Manassas and Fredericksburg lines are around 20,000 for both rush hours, that is not a huge number of trips.  It  is a matter of scale.

Problem is there's a huge amount of latent demand on I-66, so that whatever gets diverted will refill very quickly.  Doesn't mean VRE expansion shouldn't be done (it very much should).  Giving people options is just as important as "adding capacity".

We have been giving people options since the 1920's in the  D.C. area.  Since the 1970's with Metrorail. In spite of that, the mode of choice for most users of the transportation system is the private automobile (and that is a good thing, since most of the subsidies to run transit, including VRE, come from highway user fees and taxes).