A couple thoughts on this current I-495/I-270 P3 debacle:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/06/16/maryland-toll-lanes-beltway/
After the meeting, Elrich said traffic congestion could be sufficiently relieved by adding two rush-hour reversible lanes to each highway. He said he thought two lanes would fit within both highways’ rights of way, which would reduce the potential effects on surrounding parkland and neighborhoods. They also might not require tolls if the state financed the lanes itself, he said.
“This is a big deal in terms of them having to rethink their plans,” Elrich said of the Hogan administration after the vote. “If they do it as two reversible lanes, this becomes a whole lot easier.”
Speaking in favor of striking the four-lane proposal from the regional plan, Rockville Mayor Bridget Newton told fellow board members that nine Rockville neighborhoods would be “terribly impacted” by a widening of I-270.
1. It appears that a key disagreement over this potential project is whether or not the I-270 portion of the lanes should be two lanes in each direction or just two reversible lanes. While I have yet to see what the exact difference is in terms of property and environmental impacts, I find it interesting that the southern portion of I-270 was planned to have bi directional HOT lanes while the rest was planned to have reversible. Why the inconsistency? IMO similarly to I-95, the heavy amount of unpredictable thru traffic on I-270 makes bidirectional HOT lanes from the Beltway to Frederick absolutely essential. Now whether they are one or two HOT lanes in each direction is another story but hell at this point I would be thrilled in I-270 had 2 GP and 2 bidirectional HOT lanes north of Clarksburg. Looking back at Virginia's growing HOT lane system, I guarantee VDOT and probably Transurban wish that they had made the I-95 HOT lanes bi-directional and who knows according to the recent I-95 corridor study in Virginia they will definitely be looking into potentially still doing that down the road. Even I-66, a road that handles a much lower amount of thru traffic compared to I-95, I-495, and I-270 is getting bidirectional HOT lanes and even though at the moment while it may seem like overkill, it is certainly something that I ain't complaining about because when it comes to predicting traffic patterns in the future, its much better to be safe than sorry.
Calling for reversible lanes is IMO a scam intended to kill the project, for this is not a place where they will work well. The area in question is not a radial corridor to the employment centers of Arlington County, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
The New Jersey Sierra Club attempted the same scam when the New Jersey Turnpike Authority was planning for the widening of the Turnpike between Exits 6 and 8A. Never mind that the Turnpike is much more than a radial highway.
Your point about I-95 needing full-time managed lanes in both directions south of Springfield is correct.
I think that the four managed lanes are needed all the way to I-70 in Frederick. Montgomery County has long said it does not want to allow much future development except condominiums and apartments, so the single-family detached homes will go in Frederick County and other jurisdictions beyond the reach of the Montgomery County Council and the Montgomery County planning staff. Look at Urbana (off of MD-80 near I-270 for an example).
2. Whoever was in charge of this project's PR did not do a good job. A ton of important information for this project from the get-go was either unclear or seemingly rushed which helped strengthen the opposition's argument and support. There were also a ton of myths or IMO easily debunked arguments from the opposition that never seemed to be publicly expelled or challenged which I'm sure misinformed some people. The "we want more transit" complaint should have easily been debunked by saying that this project provides exactly that via encouraging more buses and carpooling. The "it will only worsen traffic" complaint should have also been debunked by saying that future phases of this project such as extending the lanes the rest of the way up I-270 would eliminate any new lane drop bottleneck that this first phase of the project would create. Showing a clear preliminary design of how the HOT lanes (on both I-495 and I-270) would have been planned to end and merge with the current GP lanes, at least in this first project phase would have also been extremely beneficial IMO. The "oh lets just have the federal government fund it" argument would have been another one since well, its the federal government and relying on them to agree to fund anything is always dicey. I'm sure there's some other myths that could have be debunked too.
Agree about poor PR in responding to claims from opponents.
The "we need more transit" argument is a standard one in Montgomery County by the county's anti-highway cottage industry. It was repeatedly used by opponents of the MD-200 (ICC) project, including by one opponent who formerly lived in Takoma Park and stated that the D.C. streetcar system should have been "revived" instead of building MD-200. Curiously, none of the people calling for more transit seemed to have heard of the Purple Line between New Carrollton and Bethesda. And no, I doubt it will ever be extended beyond Bethesda to Tysons Corners for NIMBY reasons.
Another anti-ICC person claimed that "we need Portland [Oregon]," as in the regional governance agency that exists on the Oregon side only of the Portland area. The same problem exists in Washington area. I seriously doubt that the legislatures in Richmond and Annapolis would agree to a Portland model of land use planning and transportation planning.
3. Lastly, what probably irritates me off the most about this lunacy is how it directly affects American Legion Bridge rebuild efforts and Virginia's plan to extend their HOT lanes 3 miles north from the DTR to the Potomac River. Also why the hell did the Arlington and Alexandria TPB representatives vote against this I-270/I-495 HOT lane project? Do not both these localities currently benefit from HOT lanes on I-66 and I-395?.
I do not really know why anyone of the members counties and cities voted against the project.
It is not widely known, but the American Legion Bridge is about as old as the now-demolished old Woodrow Wilson Bridge and at least one of the six bridges that makes up the American Legion Bridge is in poor structural condition (it had a deck replacement in the late 1980's and was widened to the 10 lane bridge that is there today at that time.