You may want to add to widening 66 inside the beltway will lead to much increased congestion on 66 OUTSIDE the beltway....

and in my experience, traffic on 66 outside the beltway is the real problem....

by charlie on Feb 23, 2009 12:07 pm  

No way. I just called Sharon Bulova's office to congratulate her on forcing the members to change their votes. You people are just selfish for thinking that the nation's capital is adequately served by having only a 4 lane highway lead west of it.

by Dan on Feb 23, 2009 2:01 pm  

Dan: It's not adequately served. It needs some streetcar lines, express buses, and the Silver Line Metro. We need better transportation, but more freeway lanes isn't it.

I understand that drivers are frustrated, but adding some lanes in one small spot that then narrow down to two lanes and then traffic lights in DC, won't actually relieve the frustration.

by David Alpert on Feb 23, 2009 2:07 pm  

Streetcar lines, express buses?? I am a student and need to commute into DC around 11 AM. However, there are usually NEVER any spaces in the metro parking lots and all of the park and ride buses have stopped running. So the only option I have is driving, yet even at 11 there is traffic. Also, you the bottlenecks on I-66 heading westbound are precisely at the locations that are going to be addressed. I know since I have to drive it almost every day. Besides, this is the option that Fairfax County residents want. Since it won't be affecting any of your homes I think you should just stay out of it. Also, these streetcar and other options that you mention cost a LOT more money than these "spot improvements." Maybe if the Republicans in the House of Delegates weren't continually against any infrastructure improvements in Northern Virginia we would be able to discuss them.

Also, the Board already voted earlier today to reverse the county's stance on this decision. If Smyth and Hudgins do not adopt this new stance they could be replaced on the TRB for not heeding the will of the county. I talked to Supervisor Frey's office about this.

by Dan on Feb 23, 2009 2:36 pm  

Dan: The spot improvements won't fix the problem. The congestion will remain. Therefore, it's irrelevant if an option that won't work costs less than options that will. After VDOT adds these, people will keep complaining, and then they'll want to widen it more, and then even more, and we'll still have a lot of traffic after spending hundreds of millions.

by David Alpert on Feb 23, 2009 2:44 pm  

Yeah you're right. Why don't we just never build any road infrastructure projects ever again because the evil masses will just misuse them? Also, YES they will want to widen it even more. These same improvements need to be done to the eastbound lanes of the highway. Go to even London and Paris which have excellent public transportation systems and you will also see efficient highway systems that serve as an integral part of the transportation network. None of these cities have puny highways that consist of only 2 lanes in each direction.

by Dan on Feb 23, 2009 2:49 pm  

This issue has already been decided. Let it go.

by FairfaxIsBlue on Feb 23, 2009 2:51 pm  

Euhm, Dan:

Good luck with your car in London and Paris. After you've paid your £8 congestion charge, you still will get stuck in traffic. The Périferique is a disaster to drive on. Well, I say drive, you're happy if you roll. Been there, done that. The Périferique is equally busy are I-495.

In fact, neither city has a highway coming even close to its downtown area. The M roads all end in the outer areas of London, and there is no highway within the Périferique.

I would not call the highway systems in London and Paris efficient. Not even close.

Choose your counter examples carefully.

by Jasper on Feb 23, 2009 3:04 pm  

Considering that the I-66 widening is not going to be done in downtown DC it's your UNDERSTANDING of the example that is poor. You know that if you drove from the outer part of the Périferique to central Paris its only about 6 KM, right? If its hard for you to convert that's only 3.72 miles. The improvements on I-66 are going to be made after exit 71 on 66. You know how far that is from the Ellipse in DC? That's about 4.5 miles. The Périferique has a much smaller circumference than the Beltway, so I don't even understand why you are trying to compare the two. I never said that Paris and London have highways in the middle of their cities, its just that they also assist the movement of people to the outer portions of the metro area. I dunno about you, but I've taken a cab from CDG to near Gare du Nord and its been much faster than riding the RER all the way out there.

Also, considering this issue will be finalized in favor of the citizens of Fairfax County within the next week or so there's nothing more to argue about.

by Dan on Feb 23, 2009 3:42 pm  

@ Dan: the Périferique is smaller because it is much older. And it's a disaster to drive on. Absolute madness. Many Dutch, Belgian and Northern French marriages have ended up there in a traffic jam, with dad going bezerk and mom not knowing where she is anymore.

BTW: I am a citizen of Fairfax, and widening I-66 will not benefit me one little bit. But then, what am I complaining about. "Us on 95" are getting our fourth lane... I am curious if that thing will help. Might be a good case study for I-66.

by Jasper on Feb 23, 2009 4:07 pm  

@Dan "Besides, this is the option that Fairfax County residents want. Since it won't be affecting any of your homes I think you should just stay out of it."

yeah, well, as an arlington resident, dan, let me just say this: it would be nice if you'd consider the impact on those of us whose lives will be negatively impacted by your selfish desire for road-widening.

by aj on Feb 23, 2009 5:24 pm  

it would be nice if you'd consider the impact on those of us whose lives will be negatively impacted by your selfish desire for road-widening.

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

Welcome to democracy, where 51% can trample the rights of the other 49%. Whether that's taxation, speech, property rights, it inevitably winds up that way.

by MPC on Feb 23, 2009 5:27 pm  

51% to 49%??? More like 84% to 16%. Arlington County has only about 206,800 people compared to Fairfax's 1.077 million residents. Fairfax County has every right to demand that the highway be widened. A 16% minority has no right to make miserable the lives of more than a million people.

by FairfaxIsBlue on Feb 23, 2009 5:55 pm  

A million people are miserable because I-66 doesn't have a merge lane for part but not all of its route in Arlington?

by David Alpert on Feb 23, 2009 5:58 pm  

A "promise" is not legislation. The designers of the I-66 widening are bending over backwards to do spot improvements and have demonstrated that a full two lane expansion within the existing right of way is possible, so the actual foot print will not change. Idling/slow moving traffic produces much more pollution and safety hazards. People will not stop using I-66 as it is one of only two limited access roads from Virginia into DC. When I go to these meetings I guarantee most of the people that complain live adjacent to the road. Obviously there will be noise but there are ways to mitigate that. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a vocal minority who don't want the Custis trail shifted over a little.

by Gunbelt on Feb 24, 2009 1:33 pm  

David:

"destructive"?!?

What would the spot widening of I-66 destroy?

A bit or landscaped berm along a retaining wall?

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 24, 2009 1:41 pm  

According to Linda Smyth's office, she will be reversing her vote at the next TB meeting.

Build that road!

by Frank on Feb 24, 2009 2:01 pm  

This is great! Spend lots of money for no improvements. Every time you widen a road, it gets jammed up by new cars who had previously avoided it. It's not that hard.

Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By that logic, any argument to spot-widen I-66 is insane.

by Cavan on Feb 24, 2009 2:09 pm  

Cavan-

That argument applies to what is done, not what is not done.

In the case of within the Beltway, the status quo and insanity hence is that of not building the highways.

What you post would be far more credible if posted from say a place with fairly ample highways but little non vehicular mass transit, perhaps the Twin Cities.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 24, 2009 2:50 pm  

On a more macro level, global warming is serious business, and anything that increases VMT (like a highway widening) increases global warming.

Of course it would be too much to say that one little widening in Virginia is going to destroy the world, but certainly it *is* true that the (demostratably flawed) idea that more driving is always better *is* bad for the environment.

What it boils down to is widenings don't accomplish anything positive in the long term, and *are* attached to negatives. Why do something with only negative outcomes?

by BeyondDC on Feb 24, 2009 3:14 pm  

Wrong.

The extra capacity allows more people to save more time.

Also, the existing right of way can accommodate 4 lanes in each direction, and autos are cleaner then the when the ill advised Coleman agreement, thereby allowing more vehicles with a given level of emissions.

How could they ever do such an agreement with Route 267 as part of the mix?! Even if 2 lanes in each direction is okay between I-495 and 267, there definitely should be at least 3 lanes per direction on I-66 significantly past the eastbound merge.

But within the Beltway, neurosis and wealth weighs more then common sense.

That this continues even after 911 and the acknowledgment of evacuation route capacity for the westbound side suggests something goes on beneath the surface politically that is not good.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 24, 2009 7:58 pm  

Just to throw something else in the mix, VDRPT is looking at transit and travel demand management strategies to improve the traffic along the I-66 corridor as well (http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/I66study.aspx). One solution - either widening the road or adding transit, etc - is not going to solve the problem. The key is to find the right mix to accommodate the travel demand that is in place and that will continue to grow.

by Sassyladie on Feb 25, 2009 12:06 pm  

It is simply wrong to suggest that higher VMT doesn't lead to higher carbon pollution, or that higher carbon pollution doesn't lead to global warming. Anyone who questions those facts cannot be taken seriously.

by BeyondDC on Feb 25, 2009 12:13 pm  

Sassy - Part of the reason Mr. Zimmerman did what he did at the TPB was that the transit/TDM study you cite hasn't been taken seriously enough by the state. They are moving it along at a glacial pace and have stacked the deck against using its results in any meaningful way, meanwhile they're pushing the road widening through as fast as they can.

Zimmerman's whole point is that he wants that study to be treated better.

by BeyondDC on Feb 25, 2009 12:16 pm  

Man, I can;t WAIT for these improvements to start happening. Trying to get into DC from I66 sucks! These need to happen and I'm so very glad that they are going to happen, along with other future improvements. Guess what? Freeing up people's cars from idling in traffic will....say it with me.....IMPROVE the air quality! Yayy!!!

by Mark on Feb 25, 2009 2:27 pm  

I-66 outside the beltway is wider than it will be inside the beltway even after this widening, and yet I-66 outside the beltway is still congested.

What makes you think this will stop cars from idling in traffic. Seriously, given the history of congestion getting worse over time despite ever wider highways, and given that I-66 is most congested where it is widest, what could possibly make you think this will free anybody's car from idling in traffic?

Say it with me: Widening highways does NOT reduce congestion. It induces more people to drive on the highway. The only difference between a 12 lane highway and a 4 lane highway is that one has 12 lanes of idling cars and the other has only 4.

by BeyondDC on Feb 25, 2009 2:40 pm  

Well, I can feel your vitriol, but, I for one, am GLAD! Sorry that that's not your viewpoint, but it's MINE.....and I'm GLAD! Hooray! This was the best news I've heard in a loooooooong time. Guess you're just going to have to deal with it. :-) Good luck with that.

by Mark on Feb 25, 2009 2:44 pm  

Your viewpoint is to ignore evidence and continue with wasteful spending that has been proven to make the problem you hope to solve worse?

Fair enough.

Enjoy your never ending traffic congestion and declining wealth due to utter wasting of resources.

by BeyondDC on Feb 25, 2009 2:56 pm  

... In the mean time, I will continue to enjoy my completely congestion free lifestyle. I live and work in Arlington, and have not been in a traffic jam on a Virginia highway for at least a year.

by BeyondDC on Feb 25, 2009 2:59 pm  

Vitriol? What the heck are you talking about, Mark?

BeyondDC has come back and forth with arguments that match up with what we see in our world and you keep coming back with fantasy. How is that vitriolic? I can understand Douglas. He consistently argues a wrong point but never accuses anyone else of "vitriol."

Why should the state of Virginia pay lots of money for a project that its host jurisdiction doesn't want that won't do any good? Isn't that insane? I'd much rather see Virginia flush millions of dollard down a toilet. It would be far more entertaining to see the bills swirl down the drain.

by Cavan on Feb 25, 2009 3:06 pm  

Douglas, that argument applies to what will be done. If it didn't work in the past, or the present, chances are it won't work in the future. Believing that something that has always failed will magically work this time is called leap of faith.

Leaps of faith are wonderful in one's spiritual pursuits. Not so much when we're dealing with the fate of our country.

by Cavan on Feb 25, 2009 3:09 pm  

Wow, you guys are really harsh on people who don't agree with your viewpoint. Pile on post after post. What trolls.

by Mark on Feb 26, 2009 1:30 pm  

Mark, it sounds like you're not very knowledgeable about a consequence of road-building (induced demand), and these two guys are trying to teach you something. Don't think that's harsh; it sounds helpful to me. You could stand to learn something.

by CP on Feb 26, 2009 2:04 pm  

Induced demand- translation it serves many people, saving them time to make it possible to own more affordable property and spend more time with their families, but its goes near some property owned by an entity with too much influence.

Why after all do we never see these "arguments" against highways applied to anything else?

Because some people will twist truth to serve such elites, as evident with how so called progressives push the traffic burden disproportionately to the less affluent areas south-east of the Anacostia.

That is what is known ass the D.C. version of environmental racism, thanks to such selfish entities as the Georgetown Law Center ...

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 26, 2009 5:29 pm  

I live in Arlington and support the widening of I-66. Don't think all of us Arlingtonians are brain dead like BeyondDC.

by Mike on Feb 26, 2009 5:41 pm  

You see induced demand in transit, too, Doug. All those new light rail lines across the US have induced far more traffic than predicted.

The difference, of course, is that transit use has positive externalities that are good for the community, while driving has negative externalities.

In essence, inducing demand on transit is good. Inducing demand on roadways is bad.

Furthermore, transit has a much higher capacity. It can better handle the induced traffic than lane miles can.

by Alex B. on Feb 26, 2009 6:36 pm  

You would thus place all of the vehicular traffic on surface roads with traffic lights increasing brake dust emissions?

Since when are the time savings of private automobiles not a positive externality?

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 26, 2009 11:22 pm