Report a Comment

"The point about planning failure is that the advantages to the auto-centric approach (e.g. highways) completely fails at a certain point. Highways just aren't nearly as high capacity as rail rapid transit is, period. Likewise, the auto-centric land development around those highways isn't some fait accompli either."

Do you define the existence of ANY limited access highways as "autocentric"? I think giving the needs of A. Freight( yes, I know rail, but there are distance, commodities, etc that make no sense on rail, aside from which there is not TOFC/COFC facility inside the beltway) B. Off hours C. folks whose preference/need for auto is high, etc, etc - I think having a few (though I395 is the highest capacity inside the beltway in NoVa) highways towards the core of the metro area is useful.

BTW, the HOV lanes were oringally planned as bus only lanes, but converted because they were underutilized.

"Reversible lanes like on 395/95 are not cheap, and represent only a marginal increase in capacity"

relative to a conventional lane, or relative to a smaller highway?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 2:37 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam