I have to disagree with Michael's sentiment that widening I-66 is ok. Yes, 66 backs up a lot. But as we've learned time and again, while adding more highway capacity may alleviate congestion temporarily, in the longer run it induces more car trips from commuters farther out and new farther-out development, wiping out the gains.

We should improve transit service to places west of 66 so people don't have to drive on it. And we should add more walkable development inside Arlington so people don't have to commute from all the way out there if they don't want to. Widening a freeway is not the answer.

by David Alpert on Oct 2, 2008 10:27 am • link • report

If the weekend and evening headways on Metrorail were better than 15 minutes, I would be taking Metro to go to Arlington's "Downtown" from my house. However, (a) I already own a car, and (b) parking there is generally available at a meter, and (c) the area is not generally congested, so I'd much rather drive and save 20-30 minutes roundtrip. Given that I only do this about once or twice a week, and Metro to work the rest of the time as well as cycle for local errands, my "Green Cred" is still mostly intact.

As much as I like riding Metro, on the weekends and in the evenings the service is not as frequent and therefore not as good.

We're working on walkable TOD at East Falls Church, where I live, but the fact is that it's going to be hard to assemble land that's already been divided into single family home lots, so the amount of new TOD that can be done will be limited.

by Michael P on Oct 2, 2008 11:03 am • link • report

I wonder how much of the traffic on 66 inside Arlington would be eliminated if there was Metro service to Tysons. I live in VA Square and never get in my car except to drive out to my transit-inaccessible office in Tysons, and I'm sure there are many more like me.

As far as the amount of walkable development inside Arlington itself, I thought it was already pretty great. I think it's the price of housing that keeps people from living there. I can only afford to live where I do because I'm 23, single, and have 4 roommates.

by lilybelle on Oct 2, 2008 11:05 am • link • report

I'm disappointed about this, simply because I'd like to see the Silver Line go down I-66 in Arlington. It should come into East Falls Church and then stay on I-66 to provide express-like service to Rosslyn. Then it could travel down the blue line track to Crystal City and then up into DC (I'd also propose the re-routing of all Blue Line Trains down the 14th st. bridge). This would be a way more efficient way to get people to and from the Silver Line destinations while at the same time, easing congestion on the Rosslyn tunnel without having to dig a new tunnel or build a new bridge.

by Reid on Oct 2, 2008 11:24 am • link • report

The need for these "spot improvements" may be moot once the Silver Line is completed through Tysons Cnr. Congestion is not as bad in the PM peak (when HOV-2 is in effect); it's the AM peak with traffic to Tysons when these segments of I-66 are clogged.

The money for these "spot improvements" should instead be directed to making Dulles Rail happen sooner rather than later.

A spot improvement should be just that - for a "spot" - not for widening some length of a major corridor.

by Va. Square on Oct 2, 2008 12:08 pm • link • report

Va. Square - I'm not so sure. Yes, Tysons stands to lose a lot of traffic through Metro... but it also stands to gain a hell of a lot through redevelopment of its parking lots.

Not enough time to research details atm, but if they're planning on doubling the population over ten years or something similar, increasing the capacity of one artery by 50% isn't unreasonable.

Any idea what the total amount of TOD Is likely to be as they add stations, all other things held constant?

by Squalish on Oct 2, 2008 1:30 pm • link • report

One thing I don't like about this is that while they may be adding a third lane in many areas, the fact these areas do not include the areas between an exit and the subsequent entrance means that you won't be getting anywhere near a 50% capacity increase overall. All you are doing is moving the bottleneck from the areas between entrances and the subsequent exit to the areas between exits and the subsequent entrance. Only if at least 33% of the traffic on the freeway would leave at each exit (and enter at each entrance) would the effective capacity increase so much. I don't have traffic data on this but I doubt it's anywhere near that close. If say only 10% of the traffic is leaving at each exit then the effective capacity only increases by 11%. As such, VDOT is spending all this money and causing all this impact for a small increase in capacity. Are there not other, more cost efficient ways of increasing this capacity (overall people moving capacity, since that's what matters in the end)? Don't count the Silver Line since that's not funded through VDOT's funds, but rather primarily through DTR toll receipts, which ironically would probably go up a bit from this capacity increase for cars (some of the additional cars driving through here will use the toll road). Would more reverse commute buses help? What if the reverse commute buses used the shoulder (inner or outer)?

by Mario on Oct 2, 2008 4:00 pm • link • report

@Squalish:

Redevelopment of the parking lots does not necessarily mean more traffic. It the amount of parking available goes down, then the traffic cannot increase since the additional cars would have nowhere to stay during the day. If the amount of parking does go up, however, do expect more traffic. So the question would be, if they do build over their parking lots, will they pay to replace or even add more parking through parking garages or underground parking, or just decrease the amount of parking?

by Mario on Oct 2, 2008 4:05 pm • link • report

I wasn't talking about the diminished parking, I was talking about the increase in development.

by Squalish on Oct 2, 2008 4:28 pm • link • report

Reid: I agree that express service would be good for the Silver Line, via I-66 or otherwise. That said, I rather doubt we have the impetus to make it happen.

Mario: I disagree that these improvements merely "move the bottleneck downwards". I used to commute from Columbia Heights to Tysons Corner daily, sometimes taking Metro, and other times taking a (significantly shorter but much more exasperating) trip down I-66. I can assure you that in my experience not only is the bottleneck between the Fairfax ramp in Ballston and the DTR/267 effectively constant, but that it ends at 267. This is probably precisely because so much commuter traffic is headed to Tysons!

I assume that when the Silver Line does come online it will alleviate many of these issues. But I think VDOT's decision to widen I-66 in these areas is an important and rather necessary interim step until we can permanently improve transit connectivity, which Arlington has usually been very proactive about in the past.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Oct 2, 2008 5:32 pm • link • report

Oh man, this is absolutely needed. Add more lanes to I66!! I am pro-smart growth, but I'm not idealogue. That stretch of highway is the worst in America, and there's not reason it should only be two lanes. I understand induced demand and all, but this is the the most important route into the city and it's a nightmare, even at off hours. Kudos to VDOT!

by SG on Oct 2, 2008 11:46 pm • link • report

Every person in America believes that their highway in their city or suburban region is the worst.

Don't fool youself. It is the basic design flaw of this mass transit system that does not work.

And I am calling highways a mass transit system in this context.

If you build for more capacity for cars to relieve congestion on I66 the result will be more cars attracted - ultimately leading to the very same congestion problem you have now -- only with more road to maintain and hopefully a larger tax base to pay for their maintenance.

The next logical step is to either add express bus lanes and service that can attract people out of their cars or extend the orange and build the silver and M Street lines.

The problem with automobile congestion is that it is the most inefficient way to move large amounts of people.

That is why I call highways mass transit - because it is a mass and it is predictable because everyday this mass shows up wanting or expecting more efficient service - but it never comes. And when it does the freedom is short lived and the congestion returns - and people are amazed and shocked.

Well as a real transportation professional and their is not shock or dismay. We are so use to people prenting to be transportation professionals we don't even react.

You are in denial.

The facts are in the physics.

When you have congestion it is time to think about having your vehilces move more people.

Buses are better - trains better then buses at moving more people.

Using any form of transportation, our goal as a society of intelligent human beings should be to plan for sustainable growth that does not harm the planet.

We can do this if we accept that cars are simply the most inefficient way to design a mass transit system. And you can call it "private" but is operates on public roads - and you can call it "freedom" if you think of rush hour traffic as free then there is no discussing the problem.

As a transportation professional the hardest thing to explain is the physics of cars vs. buses vs. trains. Until the price point for driving brings people to their sences - we can only hope that rational human beings get tired of sitting in traffic jams and paying taxes to fix the roads they drive on.

One final point. If WMATA or NYC Tranit or the CTA ran its buses and trains allowing only 25% of its capacity to be used - taxpayers would throw the managers out for doing a poor job. Yet - 90% of cars in rush hour have only one person in a four, five, six sometime seven seat vehicle.

We are fooling ourselves if we deny that this is a personal choice not impacting our community.

We need to realize the American Dream has its limits and that designing a transportation system should allow us to collectively look at the data of moving people - and design places that need less travel (mixed use) and links between places that continually graduate from using cars, to buses to trains to more trains as the density slowly rises.

by bob previdi on Jan 1, 2009 11:56 am • link • report

Very eloquently stated, Bob. It's always nice to hear a professional's perspective.

by Cavan on Jan 1, 2009 12:12 pm • link • report