From George Mason University via WTOP Radio: A grim prediction for D.C. area traffic in 2030 (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=654&sid=2621437)
Extend the ICC to connect int6 the Fairfax County Parkway or into VA-28. That would provide a substantial regional positive traffic impact. Much more is needed, but that would be a start.
A) how would you get it there? B) how would you pay for it?
The area is also going to need a huge change in local zoning laws (and in attitudes towards zoning) to allow much higher residential unit density in areas that are more convenient to the city and other employment centers.
Mike
Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2011, 07:43:02 PM
A) how would you get it there? B) how would you pay for it?
Same as ICC. A combination of tax funding and toll bond funding.
VDOT's broke, the Federal HTF is broke, and the Governer is frittering away his "$3 billion in bonds" elsewhere. Sorry, but without a major fundamental shift at both the state and federal level, tax funding is out of the question.
Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2011, 08:09:23 PM
VDOT's broke, the Federal HTF is broke, and the Governer is frittering away his "$3 billion in bonds" elsewhere. Sorry, but without a major fundamental shift at both the state and federal level, tax funding is out of the question.
Then finance it with toll revenue bonds. The Illinois tollway system is 100% toll funded, and they have spent billions recently on upgrades.
The Senate does have a highway bill tonight but the house will never go along so...yes HTF is broke and Illinois Tollway is not ...
and it has huge buildling plans over the next 20 years. Other parts of the state are begging for its help. If VA and MD want someone who knows how to run an urban tollway system I would suggest contacting the Illinois gov and ask them to change the law and let the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority build one for DC
QuoteThen finance it with toll revenue bonds. The Illinois tollway system is 100% toll funded, and they have spent billions recently on upgrades.
Do you even realize what you're saying? The cost to build what you want would be so astronomical that you'd have to literally charge an arm and both legs just to drive it, which in itself would limit the number of people who would do so.
There may have been a time 20-30 years ago to build a connector between 370 and VA 28...but due to Loudon and MoCo development, that time is now long past.
Your Illinois example is also apples-and-oranges. Those Illinois toll roads were built at a time when road construction costs were cheap (even after factoring inflation) and were largely greenfield development. Very much not the case with the Techway.
If those areas are developed then its over.
The Illinois Tollway has built the north south tollway and is now planning on buildling the Elgin Ohare and Illinois 53 which should each run around a billion dollars or more for about 15 miles each. They should have traffic volumes of 100,000. They will be more expensive than the older routes but if the affluent areas of VA and MD need roads they have to pay
Quote from: Beltway on November 05, 2011, 08:40:13 PM
Then finance it with toll revenue bonds. The Illinois tollway system is 100% toll funded, and they have spent billions recently on upgrades.
Not completely true:
1) Bridges over the tollways are maintained by the agency who maintains the road connecting to the bridge. For example, if IL 60 crossing the tollway, IDOT has to maintain the bridge over the tollway. Furthermore, IDOT vehicles do not get any discount when using the tollway, so if it maintenance has to be done on the underside of the bridge, tax dollars are going to the toll authority.
2) Fixing the original half completed interchanges or adding new interchanges requires funding from local communities and/or IDOT
3) I'm pretty sure I saw something about IDOT giving the toll authority a $3 million reimbursement for the southern extension of I-355 in one of the recent transportation plans.
Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2011, 10:30:54 PM
QuoteThen finance it with toll revenue bonds. The Illinois tollway system is 100% toll funded, and they have spent billions recently on upgrades.
Do you even realize what you're saying? The cost to build what you want would be so astronomical that you'd have to literally charge an arm and both legs just to drive it, which in itself would limit the number of people who would do so.
There may have been a time 20-30 years ago to build a connector between 370 and VA 28...but due to Loudon and MoCo development, that time is now long past.
Your Illinois example is also apples-and-oranges. Those Illinois toll roads were built at a time when road construction costs were cheap (even after factoring inflation) and were largely greenfield development. Very much not the case with the Techway.
And they're going to be building more, Froggie, so the building isn't over, and times aren't as different as you think.
The Elgin-O'Hare Extension and West O'Hare Bypass are not greenfield developments, even though the Illiana Expressway will be.
Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2011, 10:30:54 PM
QuoteThen finance it with toll revenue bonds. The Illinois tollway system is 100% toll funded, and they have spent billions recently on upgrades.
Do you even realize what you're saying? The cost to build what you want would be so astronomical that you'd have to literally charge an arm and both legs just to drive it, which in itself would limit the number of people who would do so.
There may have been a time 20-30 years ago to build a connector between 370 and VA 28...but due to Loudon and MoCo development, that time is now long past.
No more developed than along ICC. No more expensive per mile than ICC
The article is about plans for 2030 ... it would be insane to not plan capacity to supplement the overloaded Capital Beltway.
QuoteNo more developed than along ICC. No more expensive per mile than ICC
There's a *HUGE* difference here. The right-of-way was already set aside for the ICC. You have no such right-of-way set aside for the Techway.
Neither roads, nor comunal transit, nor any combination of both is the answer to the problem.
The solution is actually a cost savings for both the state and federal governments.
DC is an artificial city. It has one industry. Government. And modern communications technology make it possible to do many of the functions of government anywhere. So do that. Rather than robotically build more and more stuff "inside the beltway", think about what you are doing. If the function can be done elsewhere, then do it elsewhere.
Lets look at the FBI. It had six functions, including the fingerprint records, done in DC. High cost land. High cost workers, with big turnover. And nothing they did really had anything to do with anything done by anybody else in DC. It could be done in the middle of nowhere, just as well.
So that is what they did. Moved it to Clarksburg, WV. The middle of nowhere. Land? Reclaimed strip mine, free. Workers? High quality and in need of jobs in a depressed area, glad to have the work, happy, and hard working. And, under the federal civil service pay system, not making the "cost of living" bump (workers on the east coast make more than workers elsewhere in the same job class).
Win-win.
So do that. Just keep the theme park stuff (capitol, Smithsonian, etc) and the things that actually have to be done in DC in DC. Move the rest elsewhere.
And, you know what, maybe a diversity of locale will lead to a diversity of thought and opinion. But that is another topic.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 06, 2011, 07:26:47 AM
DC is an artificial city. It has one industry. Government. And modern communications technology make it possible to do many of the functions of government anywhere.
2/3 of the jobs in the D.C. area are private sector jobs.
While it could be argued that some of them are in support of government contracting, most of those offices could just as easily locate outside of the D.C. area.
State capitals have a similar situation, being a hub location for state and federal offices.
Quote from: froggie on November 06, 2011, 07:13:06 AM
QuoteNo more developed than along ICC. No more expensive per mile than ICC
There's a *HUGE* difference here. The right-of-way was already set aside for the ICC. You have no such right-of-way set aside for the Techway.
*SOME* of the right-of-way was already set aside for the ICC.
More trans-Potomac River capacity is needed outside of the Capital Beltway, especially by the 2030 window of the above article.
Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2011, 08:48:31 PM
*SOME* of the right-of-way was already set aside for the ICC.
Which parts weren't? I know the original plan (or one of them) used Montrose Parkway and came into the ICC west of MD 650. But some of the land on the eventual route north of there had been set aside for a Midcounty Highway extension.
Quote from: NE2 on November 06, 2011, 11:35:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2011, 08:48:31 PM
*SOME* of the right-of-way was already set aside for the ICC.
Which parts weren't? I know the original plan (or one of them) used Montrose Parkway and came into the ICC west of MD 650. But some of the land on the eventual route north of there had been set aside for a Midcounty Highway extension.
Md. 200 (the ICC) follows the original Outer Beltway alignment from U.S. 1 west to a point between the Notley Road overpass and Md. 182, near the National Capital Trolley Museum. At that point, the old Outer Beltway veered away from the ICC in the direction of Md. 97 (Georgia Avenue) at Hewitt Avenue, then passing the never-completed interchange on Md. 185 (Connecticut Avenue) between Randolph Road and Aspen Hill Road. There's a "garden" in that interchange now, dedicated to the late Councilmember/Delegate/Senator Idamae Garrott. The alignment then continued west and south to Md. 586 (Viers Mill Road) between Aspen Hill Road and Randolph Road. It is very visible on Google Maps (here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=aspen+hill,+maryland&hl=en&ll=39.070779,-77.071667&spn=0.035984,0.061541&hnear=Aspen+Hill,+Montgomery,+Maryland&gl=us&t=h&z=14&vpsrc=6)). This strip of land was once called the Rockville Facility and is the Matthew Henson State Park, courtesy of Ms. Garrott.
Between Md. 586 and Md. 355 (Rockville Pike), the land is still set aside for transportation use as the Montrose Parkway, even though the completed arterial Montrose Parkway runs between Montrose Road near I-270 and the interchange at Md. 355.
Returning to the Md. 200 right-of-way, west of the Trolley Museum, the alignment that it now uses (from there to the Sam Eig Highway, west of I-370) was laid out in the 1960's, according to a former longtime senior staff person that I spoke with recently who was with the Montgomery County Planning Department of the M-NCP&PC. Part of the motivation for the new ICC alignment was that planners wanted to move the crossing for the Outer Beltway upstream from its initial location relatively near "downtown" Potomac. There was (and is) also a provision for the ICC to tie into the proposed Mid-County Highway, though there is strong citizen opposition to
that as well (you can read more here (http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dottmpl.asp?url=/content/dot/des/corridor/content-mcsPublicInvolvement.asp) on the Montgomery County Web site). On the eastbound side of Md. 200, the tunnel under Winters Run has an extra (unused) lane for a possible tie-in to Mid-County Highway.
Regarding the land that was reserved for the Md. 200, there were
relatively few homes and businesses that had to be condemned for the project (because it had been on the master plans for so many years). There were several takes in Derwood (off of Redland Road), where federal environmental regulators demanded that the ICC be shifted off of its master-planned route to lessen stream impacts in the Upper Rock Creek watershed, which the state did. There was a day-care facility in an old house west of Md. 182 (Layhill Road) fronting onto Park Vista Drive that had to be taken for the ICC. The Longmeade Crossing community was a source of
strong opposition to the ICC, but the folks who lived there purchased homes that had been approved for construction
after the land for the ICC was deeded over to the Maryland Department of Transportation (the developer of Longmeade Crossing was
required, as a condition of development approval in the 1980's, to turn the land for the ICC over to MDOT).
Quote from: SP Cook on November 06, 2011, 07:26:47 AM
Neither roads, nor comunal transit, nor any combination of both is the answer to the problem.
Agreed. Though many elected officials in the D.C. region believe passionately in "faith-based transportation planning" (
I did not make that phrase up - a friend and former colleague coined it).
QuoteThe solution is actually a cost savings for both the state and federal governments.
DC is an artificial city. It has one industry. Government. And modern communications technology make it possible to do many of the functions of government anywhere. So do that. Rather than robotically build more and more stuff "inside the beltway", think about what you are doing. If the function can be done elsewhere, then do it elsewhere.
I was born in D.C., and have lived nearly all of my life in Maryland near D.C. My current office location is about seven blocks north of the U.S. Capitol building. I (generally) agree with you. But I do not think that's going to happen, even though some federal jobs (like FBI fingerprint examining and archiving to a site in West Virginia off I-79 and the main IRS data center in Martinsburg, W.Va.) have been moved away.
QuoteLets look at the FBI. It had six functions, including the fingerprint records, done in DC. High cost land. High cost workers, with big turnover. And nothing they did really had anything to do with anything done by anybody else in DC. It could be done in the middle of nowhere, just as well.
So that is what they did. Moved it to Clarksburg, WV. The middle of nowhere. Land? Reclaimed strip mine, free. Workers? High quality and in need of jobs in a depressed area, glad to have the work, happy, and hard working. And, under the federal civil service pay system, not making the "cost of living" bump (workers on the east coast make more than workers elsewhere in the same job class).
See above, which I wrote before reading your suggestion. I agree with you. But read below.
QuoteWin-win.
So do that. Just keep the theme park stuff (capitol, Smithsonian, etc) and the things that actually have to be done in DC in DC. Move the rest elsewhere.
And, you know what, maybe a diversity of locale will lead to a diversity of thought and opinion. But that is another topic.
There is an
awful lot of stuff (embassies of foreign nations, law firms, lobbyists, trade associations, labor unions, among other activities) that
must or
wants to be near the seat of the national government, even in this day of the Internet and cheap long-distance calling. And some things are just plain expensive and difficult to move. Consider the many government activities in the greater D.C. area that rely on certain types of buildings (including buildings that have been "hardened" to protect against terrorist attack and accidental "leakage" of electronic signals that our enemies might want to intercept).