Report a Comment

@Falls Church:

I should have clarified. So can highways ever qualify as good planning? If so, what are some examples of highways that represent good planning and what criteria would they have to meet that 395 HOV lanes do not? Or are you saying the entire Eisenhower highway system was a big mistake?

We're clearly talking about urban highways here, yes?

Of course the entire interstate system wasn't a mistake. But building interstates through cities doesn't make much sense, just like building subways across the great plains doesn't make much sense...

@AWalker:

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.

Yes, pretty much.

For folks who need a car, that's really the result of auto-centric planning as well - you can't separate the transportation infrastructure planning from the land development planning.

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

Relative to both.

@goldfish

Compared to the $5B it takes to build a new metro line, it is lot cheaper! Sure rail has much higher capacity, but it also costs so much more. So regarding the cost-effectiveness, you must also consider how much it will get used -- i.e., are you getting enough bang for the taxpayer's buck? You have not shown this.

Shown what? I'm not suggesting we build Metro down to Fredricksburg. I was merely challenging the idea that slugging was the result of 'good planning.' That's not how it appears to me at all. Slugging is taking lemons and making lemonade; the HOV lanes are the juicer that makes it possible.

Of course rail is far more expensive - it's also far more beneficial.

by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2012 3:01 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