Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

"But it would take a sea change (realistically, a decrease in auto traffic) for projects to removed from Table 7"

that would seem to imply that the need for them is not based on incremental traffic due to the Tysons redevelopment. That suggests to me that the whole "table 7" is somewhat deceptive.

As for the politics, it may well be that an undesirable project has too much political momentum to stop. If a 9-1 decision against can be reversed though, if Loudoun's support for the Silver Line can be reversed, I wouldnt assume that the rte7 widening is cast in stone. Certainly a decision to accept 50 million from the Commonwealth to plan is not the same as spending 300 million+ on building.

Of course I am not asking to remove the project from table 7. If in 2050, the superhighwaying of rte 7 is still on table 7, still being planned, I will be more than pleased.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 27, 2012 9:39 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