Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[1995hoo]

What does “SIU”  stand for?

[sprjus4]

What does “SIU”  stand for?

Segment of Independent Utility.

[Beltway]

The radical environmentalist/transit groups would have conniption fits.

But less, because it wouldn't cross the Potomac River. And Maryland isn't involved, so I could easily see it built if Virginia truly is committed and has the funding (neither of which has been shown by them).

I honestly don't see an adequate cost/benefit ratio, especially with how much construction costs have escalated in the last 10 years, to building a Virginia-only WTC.

Widening of US-15 to 4 lanes is more in the realm of financial feasibility.

I'm shocked there hasn't been as much outrage about projects like the HRBT expansion, Third Crossing proposals, or I-64 widening to Richmond, two of those projects completely unfunded.

Low environmental impacts for HRBT and THRC, it's that simple.

Low environmental impacts for widening I-64 as well.

[BrianP]

Montgomery Official Suggests Suing State over 270/495 Lane-Widening

Local planning officials are considering litigation against the Maryland Department of Transportation after a contentious meeting on Wednesday over the state’s I-270/I-495 lane-widening proposal.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCCPC) voted unanimously to reaffirm a June decision rejecting the state’s final proposals for improving the two highways.

In a phone interview after the meeting, Choplin said the state would release a draft environmental impact statement in the spring.The report will detail more information on the state’s financial analysis, traffic and revenue studies, and environmental surveys, she said – information that could jeopardize the bidding process for the toll lanes if it were released too soon.

But Vice Chair Casey Anderson, who also heads the county’s Planning Board, said the commission could slow the process by refusing to deed over parkland or challenging the state’s adherence to the National Environmental Policy Act.

“The way things are headed, we have to be seriously thinking about litigating,”  he said after the meeting.

[hbelkins]

What does “SIU”  stand for?

Segment of Independent Utility.

Also known as "Segment of Independent Use."

Means that the segment can be used by traffic before the complete route is finished.

[sprjus4]

Montgomery Official Suggests Suing State over 270/495 Lane-Widening

Local planning officials are considering litigation against the Maryland Department of Transportation after a contentious meeting on Wednesday over the state’s I-270/I-495 lane-widening proposal.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCCPC) voted unanimously to reaffirm a June decision rejecting the state’s final proposals for improving the two highways.

In a phone interview after the meeting, Choplin said the state would release a draft environmental impact statement in the spring.The report will detail more information on the state’s financial analysis, traffic and revenue studies, and environmental surveys, she said – information that could jeopardize the bidding process for the toll lanes if it were released too soon.

But Vice Chair Casey Anderson, who also heads the county’s Planning Board, said the commission could slow the process by refusing to deed over parkland or challenging the state’s adherence to the National Environmental Policy Act.

“The way things are headed, we have to be seriously thinking about litigating,”  he said after the meeting.

Wow - Montgomery County is so anti-freeway / expansion that they are now playing the role of a RE/T group using the same rinse and repeat NEPA argument saying it’s not done being properly. Have never heard that one used before 

[froggie]

Given the very serious implications of Section 104(f) through Rock Creek Park, it's not surprising.  And the state has a history of not following through on its park-related promises (witness the ICC).

[Beltway]

Given the very serious implications of Section 104(f) through Rock Creek Park, it's not surprising.  And the state has a history of not following through on its park-related promises (witness the ICC).

What were the problems on the ICC?

Building the 2-mile Beltway segment through Rock Creek Park in Montgomery County, Maryland, most likely would have been impossible to build after enactment of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with its stringent federal environmental standards.  Unfortunately, these kind of highway designs were commonplace all over the U.S. before NEPA, as the rationale was that it enabled urban and suburban highway segments to be built in places that did not displace houses and businesses.  Engineers and planners routinely routed highways through areas which would provide the least resistance, and in practical terms that often meant sites that were occupied by minorities or the poor, or riverfronts or stream valleys or parks that housed few or no residents or business owners to complain.

The Maryland segment of the beltway was planned to follow open corridors as much as possible, to avoid heavily developed areas where possible, and in Prince Georges County it was possible to avoid heavily developed areas, but in Montgomery County that was not possible in every area as there were some segments with heavy impacts to developed areas with many homes and businesses acquired for the highway right-of-way; and a 2-mile beltway segment was built through Rock Creek Park over the objections of state and federal public park agencies, something that probably would not have been possible after Congressional enactment of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as one of the many things that NEPA did was to make it virtually impossible to build a highway through major public parkland.  The alternative to the Rock Creek Park alignment would have been to locate the highway on a straighter alignment about a mile to the north, which would have been advantageous from a traffic engineering standpoint, but which was effectively politically impossible as it would have passed through heavily developed and very affluent residential sections of Bethesda.  After NEPA, it is quite possible that it would not have been possible to find a feasible location build that segment of the Beltway if it had not already been built, and that would have left a missing link in the Beltway between MD-355 Wisconsin Avenue and MD-97 Georgia Avenue.

http://www.capital-beltway.com/Capital-Beltway-History.html

[cpzilliacus]

Given the very serious implications of Section 104(f) through Rock Creek Park, it's not surprising.  And the state has a history of not following through on its park-related promises (witness the ICC).

I am not aware of MDTA or SHA failing to play by the Section 4(f) rules on MD-200.   If they did not, please say where and please be specific. 

Now I do remember during the 1990's ICC wars, that EPA Region 3 (located in Philadelphia) wanted to claim that any part of the planned alignment that was near parkland would be subject to some sort of a magical expansion of Section 4(f).   Region 3 also wanted the 1990's NEPA study to exclude the master-planned route through the Upper Paint Branch stream valley, in order to protect the alien brown trout in that stream and some of its tributaries - this was a clear violation of NEPA, and those objections ended after then-Region 3 Administrator Peter Kostmayer was fired by President Bill Clinton for using federal dollars to support anti-Corridor H activities in West Virginia.

Regarding I-495, SRC took large swaths of parkland belonging to M-NCP&PC where the freeway crossed Rock Creek Park (especially), but also Sligo Creek Park and Northwest Branch Park.  Those takes happened years before the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (which was where Section 4(f) was codified) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

[froggie]

What were the problems on the ICC?

The most blatant problem, which CP has commented on as well, is they're not fully building out the parallel bike/ped path that was promised.

CP:  I wasn't referring to MDTA or SHA failing on Section 104(f) rules.  I was referring to their failing on promised mitigation.

[Beltway]

What were the problems on the ICC?

The most blatant problem, which CP has commented on as well, is they're not fully building out the parallel bike/ped path that was promised.
CP:  I wasn't referring to MDTA or SHA failing on Section 104(f) rules.  I was referring to their failing on promised mitigation.

I just now tabulated 7 miles of ICC Trails built.

How much of a transportation benefit and an environmental benefit would be accomplished by building more ICC Trails?

I see that they built 6 extended bridges over stream / wetland areas, and a tunnel for community connectivity.

Lots of sound barriers … maybe I will tabulate them later.

[cpzilliacus]

What were the problems on the ICC?

The most blatant problem, which CP has commented on as well, is they're not fully building out the parallel bike/ped path that was promised.

CP:  I wasn't referring to MDTA or SHA failing on Section 104(f) rules.  I was referring to their failing on promised mitigation.

As I suggested in the Nice Bridge thread, the fault for that does not rest with MdTA or SHA, but with the Prince George's County and Montgomery County Planning Boards, County Councils and staff. 

They were the ones that failed to object to efforts by federal environmental regulators that claimed that there was "damage" from such a trail - especially in the Paint Branch [of the Anacostia River] watershed, where those regulators were attempting to protect the brown trout population in the stream - never mind that the brown trout are an alien, introduced species and as such get no protection under federal (or state) environmental laws.  In other words, a low-impact master-planned planned transportation improvement like the ICC trail was (and is) worthy of much more protection than an alien fish species.

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post editorial: Why are so many lawmakers fighting Larry Hogan’s I-270 plan?

MASSIVE PUBLIC problems demand big-time responses and, by any measure, traffic on the Capital Beltway and Interstate 270, which together include some of the worst bottlenecks in the Mid-Atlantic region, is a huge one. So why are so many officials and lawmakers fighting Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s ambitious plan to widen those highways with money from private firms that would build and operate new variable-price toll lanes in return for keeping most of the revenue?

The probable answer lies in a combination of legitimate concerns about possible adverse effects on the environment and neighborhoods; the project’s daunting scale; ideology-driven partisan politics – and shortcomings so far in Mr. Hogan’s issue framing and salesmanship. That helps explain why he is struggling to attract critical support on Maryland’s Board of Public Works, an inordinately powerful body that includes Mr. Hogan, a Republican, and just two other officials: State Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp and Comptroller Peter Franchot, both Democrats.

[cpzilliacus]

Building the 2-mile Beltway segment through Rock Creek Park in Montgomery County, Maryland, most likely would have been impossible to build after enactment of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with its stringent federal environmental standards.

I believe that is incorrect - at least the cite of federal law is not correct in this context.  The relevant law here is not the NEPA (that was signed into law by Nixon in 1969), but is the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Public  Law  89-670),  signed by President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Section 4(f) reads as follows (emphasis added):

(f)   The  Secretary  shall  cooperate  and  consult  with  the  Secretaries  of  the  Interior,  Housing  and  Urban  Development,  and  Agriculture,  and  with  the  States  in  developing  transportation  plans  and  programs  that  include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty  of  the  lands  traversed.  After  the  effective  date  of  this  Act,  the  Secretary  shall  not  approve  any  program  or  project  which  requires  the  use  of  any  land  from  a  public  park,  recreation  area,  wildlife  and  waterfowl  refuge, or historic site unless  (1)  there is no feasible and prudent  alternative  to the  use  of  such  land,  and  (2)  such  program  includes  all  possible  planning  to  minimize  harm   to  such   park,   recreational   area,   wildlife  and  waterfowl  refuge,  or historic  site resulting  from  such  use.

[cpzilliacus]

[ The author of this article was defeated by Hogan in the 2014 race for Governor of Maryland, and IMO he lost in part because his proposed transportation program was very anemic. ]

Op-ed: Maryland’s way out of traffic isn’t more lanes

Our nation’s highway system has been neglected for far too long. That neglect is costing Americans their time, their money and, tragically, their lives. Making a major investment in our infrastructure is a top priority in Washington and in state capitols across the country.

But it’s not enough to simply rebuild our roads and fix our bridges; we need to reinvest in a modern, interconnected transportation network for future generations.

That is why I am concerned about Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) proposal to expand 70 miles of interstate in Maryland by simply adding toll lanes: It is a shortsighted plan reflecting 1960s ideas that will do little to improve congestion, accommodate new technologies or behaviors or address the growing impact of climate change.

[sprjus4]

[ The author of this article was defeated by Hogan in the 2014 race for Governor of Maryland, and IMO he lost in part because his proposed transportation program was very anemic. ]

Op-ed: Maryland’s way out of traffic isn’t more lanes

Our nation’s highway system has been neglected for far too long. That neglect is costing Americans their time, their money and, tragically, their lives. Making a major investment in our infrastructure is a top priority in Washington and in state capitols across the country.

But it’s not enough to simply rebuild our roads and fix our bridges; we need to reinvest in a modern, interconnected transportation network for future generations.

That is why I am concerned about Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) proposal to expand 70 miles of interstate in Maryland by simply adding toll lanes: It is a shortsighted plan reflecting 1960s ideas that will do little to improve congestion, accommodate new technologies or behaviors or address the growing impact of climate change.

Oh please. Virginia's portion of the I-495 Express Lanes have relieved traffic a decent amount, for both HO/T traffic and general purpose, and extending the 4+2 each way setup around the entire beltway would have the same results. Because it would also necessitate reconstructing the entire roadway, it would also allow an opportunity to modernize the beltway, rebuild all the interchanges, add auxiliary lanes, and other improvements that benefit general purpose traffic, the same that happened with Virginia's portion, with a significant portion privately funded. I-66 Outside the Beltway is now getting similar treatment, though should eventually get widened to 8 general purpose lanes, along with I-95, but that's a different story.

RE/T groups, supporters, and counties (Montgomery County) will oppose any transportation improvements to roads, whether it be building a second Potomac River Crossing, building an outer bypass, and now even widening the congested beltway.

[Revive 755]

From the article:

In the Baltimore region, highway expansion outpaced population growth over the past two decades, but time spent in traffic quadrupled.

There's really been that much new capacity added in the DC area?  Going off of Wikipedia the DC area has added at least a million people in the past two decades.

[Beltway]

[ The author of this article was defeated by Hogan in the 2014 race for Governor of Maryland, and IMO he lost in part because his proposed transportation program was very anemic. ]

That is why I am concerned about Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) proposal to expand 70 miles of interstate in Maryland by simply adding toll lanes: It is a shortsighted plan reflecting 1960s ideas that will do little to improve congestion, accommodate new technologies or behaviors or address the growing impact of climate change.

How about simply first of all building the highest priority and longest delayed and most obvious segments?
-- I-495 managed lanes between the northern Potomac bridge and Spur I-270, 2 new lanes each way, 4 miles
-- I-270 6-lane widening between Germantown and I-70 at Frederick, 14 miles

[sprjus4]

Beltway toll lanes on hold; Md. set to OK toll lanes only over Legion Bridge, part of I-270

Maryland will no longer immediately pursue toll lanes around the Capital Beltway, and will instead only seek to put toll lanes across the Legion Bridge and up Interstate 270 to the Shady Grove area.

Under an agreement between Republican Gov. Larry Hogan and Democratic Comptroller Peter Franchot released Friday, the two will vote to approve the new plan at a Board of Public Works meeting Wednesday. Treasurer Nancy Kopp has opposed the toll lane plans.

The deal will limit the initial contract with private companies to build and operate the toll lanes to an extension of the 495 Express Lanes from Virginia over a rebuilt Legion Bridge up I-270 to I-370.

Other toll lane construction previously proposed by the Hogan administration around the rest of the Beltway through Montgomery and Prince George’s counties – or up I-270 through Frederick County to I-70 – would be deferred indefinitely. Those lanes would move forward only after separate Board of Public Works approvals.

The lanes around the Beltway have sparked some of the harshest pushback on the plans, including over concerns it could require widening the Beltway into homes or parkland.

“The only thing this project will do is put money in the hands of foreign investors,”  said Maryland Transit Opportunities Coalition Chair Ben Ross in a statement Friday. “Traffic will back up even more than it does now at the worst choke points – the I-270-Beltway merge at the Wisconsin Avenue exit and the northbound lane merges on I-270.”

“Releasing this plan on a Friday afternoon and rushing it through next Wednesday is completely unacceptable,”  Ross added. “The public must get the facts before any commitments are made.”

In another change from the Hogan administration’s proposals this fall, the state will promise a degree of specific transit investments in the contract or contracts with the private company building the lanes.

The fall plans were pulled from the agenda after WTOP reported on the details.

Under the revised agreement, there is no change for HOV users from the earlier plan. Transit buses, but not necessarily other buses or HOV users, will be allowed to use the toll lanes for free.

The state is now promising not to buy any property for the road widenings before final contract approval.

Under the revised schedule, the Legion Bridge and I-270 contracting process would begin next month.

By June, the state would announce a shortlist of qualified companies or teams.

In July, the state plans to give those teams a draft request for proposals outlining specific contract requirements.

The final request for proposals would be released in December, with proposals due from the companies by February 2021.

A winning bidder would be selected in March 2021, with a contract due to be in place by May 2021. At least some construction could then start as soon as that summer.

Toll lanes would be built between the American Legion Bridge and I-370 along I-495 and I-270. From the article, it appears the lanes would operate similarly to Baltimore's I-95 lanes which does not exempt HOV from tolls. IMO, a poor decision, and does not utilize the lanes to their full potential. Traffic congestion would be relieved further if HOV was exempt rather than tolling all traffic. It's unclear whether one or two lanes would be built in each direction.

[tolbs17]

Beltway toll lanes on hold; Md. set to OK toll lanes only over Legion Bridge, part of I-270

Maryland will no longer immediately pursue toll lanes around the Capital Beltway, and will instead only seek to put toll lanes across the Legion Bridge and up Interstate 270 to the Shady Grove area.

Under an agreement between Republican Gov. Larry Hogan and Democratic Comptroller Peter Franchot released Friday, the two will vote to approve the new plan at a Board of Public Works meeting Wednesday. Treasurer Nancy Kopp has opposed the toll lane plans.

The deal will limit the initial contract with private companies to build and operate the toll lanes to an extension of the 495 Express Lanes from Virginia over a rebuilt Legion Bridge up I-270 to I-370.

Other toll lane construction previously proposed by the Hogan administration around the rest of the Beltway through Montgomery and Prince George’s counties – or up I-270 through Frederick County to I-70 – would be deferred indefinitely. Those lanes would move forward only after separate Board of Public Works approvals.

The lanes around the Beltway have sparked some of the harshest pushback on the plans, including over concerns it could require widening the Beltway into homes or parkland.

“The only thing this project will do is put money in the hands of foreign investors,”  said Maryland Transit Opportunities Coalition Chair Ben Ross in a statement Friday. “Traffic will back up even more than it does now at the worst choke points – the I-270-Beltway merge at the Wisconsin Avenue exit and the northbound lane merges on I-270.”

“Releasing this plan on a Friday afternoon and rushing it through next Wednesday is completely unacceptable,”  Ross added. “The public must get the facts before any commitments are made.”

In another change from the Hogan administration’s proposals this fall, the state will promise a degree of specific transit investments in the contract or contracts with the private company building the lanes.

The fall plans were pulled from the agenda after WTOP reported on the details.

Under the revised agreement, there is no change for HOV users from the earlier plan. Transit buses, but not necessarily other buses or HOV users, will be allowed to use the toll lanes for free.

The state is now promising not to buy any property for the road widenings before final contract approval.

Under the revised schedule, the Legion Bridge and I-270 contracting process would begin next month.

By June, the state would announce a shortlist of qualified companies or teams.

In July, the state plans to give those teams a draft request for proposals outlining specific contract requirements.

The final request for proposals would be released in December, with proposals due from the companies by February 2021.

A winning bidder would be selected in March 2021, with a contract due to be in place by May 2021. At least some construction could then start as soon as that summer.

Toll lanes would be built between the American Legion Bridge and I-370 along I-495 and I-270. From the article, it appears the lanes would operate similarly to Baltimore's I-95 lanes which does not exempt HOV from tolls. IMO, a poor decision, and does not utilize the lanes to their full potential. Traffic congestion would be relieved further if HOV was exempt rather than tolling all traffic. It's unclear whether one or two lanes would be built in each direction.

Two is needed in each direction. It gets heavily congested. 

link

[Beltway]

Maryland will no longer immediately pursue toll lanes around the Capital Beltway, and will instead only seek to put toll lanes across the Legion Bridge and up Interstate 270 to the Shady Grove area.

Good.  That would be a huge step forward.  Get that project going and then we can look at the others.

[vdeane]

I support this only if it truly does include the Beltway between the bridge and I-270; the article appears to be unclear on that, especially since my previous understanding was that the initial construction would only include the I-270 portion of the project.

[sprjus4]

I support this only if it truly does include the Beltway between the bridge and I-270; the article appears to be unclear on that, especially since my previous understanding was that the initial construction would only include the I-270 portion of the project.

You do bring up a good point. It may be the American Legion Bridge portion, then end, then a second segment solely along I-270.

Hopefully though, it is along the I-495 corridor fully as well.

One thing I've mentioned previously, and will again, I don't support the current concept for the I-270 toll lanes as the current setup is a local-express setup, with 4 thru lanes and 2 local lanes, and the toll lane construction would eliminate that local-express design down to only 5 non-managed (not divided local and thru) general purpose lanes, and 2 toll lanes each way.

They shouldn't reduce the general purpose capacity to accommodate the toll lanes. Expand it outwards, or if the right of way is restricted, build elevated lanes.

[Jmiles32]

I support this only if it truly does include the Beltway between the bridge and I-270; the article appears to be unclear on that, especially since my previous understanding was that the initial construction would only include the I-270 portion of the project.

You do bring up a good point. It may be the American Legion Bridge portion, then end, then a second segment solely along I-270.

Hopefully though, it is along the I-495 corridor fully as well.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/traffic/hogan-says-agreement-with-franchot-means-270-495-toll-lane-plan-can-advance/

According to the board’s agenda for Wednesday, the project will begin with the section of the Capital Beltway between the American Legion Bridge to its interchange with I-270, and I-270 to its interchange with I-370 in Gaithersburg.

Hopefully, this article clears that concern up. Looks like the new lanes will indeed go uninterrupted all the from the bridge to I-370. However, I'm predicting right now that I-370 terminus is not nearly as far north enough as needed and will probably result in an even worse afternoon bottleneck than the current one.

One thing I've mentioned previously, and will again, I don't support the current concept for the I-270 toll lanes as the current setup is a local-express setup, with 4 thru lanes and 2 local lanes, and the toll lane construction would eliminate that local-express design down to only 5 non-managed (not divided local and thru) general purpose lanes, and 2 toll lanes each way.

They shouldn't reduce the general purpose capacity to accommodate the toll lanes. Expand it outwards, or if the right of way is restricted, build elevated lanes.

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. However, I will say that there is definitely a difference between turning an HOV lane into 2-HOT lanes and turning an HOV lane into 2-ET lanes. Hoping against hope that Maryland constructs HOT lanes to match Virignia's. However, this unfortunately seems more and more unlikely...

Overall glad this deal was made as this was the correct compromise that needed to happen in order to move this vital project forward.

[famartin]

I support this only if it truly does include the Beltway between the bridge and I-270; the article appears to be unclear on that, especially since my previous understanding was that the initial construction would only include the I-270 portion of the project.

You do bring up a good point. It may be the American Legion Bridge portion, then end, then a second segment solely along I-270.

Hopefully though, it is along the I-495 corridor fully as well.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/traffic/hogan-says-agreement-with-franchot-means-270-495-toll-lane-plan-can-advance/

According to the board’s agenda for Wednesday, the project will begin with the section of the Capital Beltway between the American Legion Bridge to its interchange with I-270, and I-270 to its interchange with I-370 in Gaithersburg.

Hopefully, this article clears that concern up. Looks like the new lanes will indeed go uninterrupted all the from the bridge to I-370. However, I'm predicting right now that I-370 terminus is not nearly as far north enough as needed and will probably result in an even worse afternoon bottleneck than the current one.

One thing I've mentioned previously, and will again, I don't support the current concept for the I-270 toll lanes as the current setup is a local-express setup, with 4 thru lanes and 2 local lanes, and the toll lane construction would eliminate that local-express design down to only 5 non-managed (not divided local and thru) general purpose lanes, and 2 toll lanes each way.

They shouldn't reduce the general purpose capacity to accommodate the toll lanes. Expand it outwards, or if the right of way is restricted, build elevated lanes.

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. However, I will say that there is definitely a difference between turning an HOV lane into 2-HOT lanes and turning an HOV lane into 2-ET lanes. Hoping against hope that Maryland constructs HOT lanes to match Virignia's. However, this unfortunately seems more and more unlikely...

Overall glad this deal was made as this was the correct compromise that needed to happen in order to move this vital project forward.

This is basically what local officials have requested for a while now. Here's a 2015 article which also mentions a similar request in 2012.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/news/montgomery-fairfax-county-leaders-jointly-push-for-express-lanes-to-relieve-american-legion-bridge-congestion/