Too many people seem to forget that HOT Lanes also permit reliable express bus service on affected roads. Fairfax County is planning a number of these routes on the Beltway to Tysons. I-95 can produce similar results to Rosslyn and D.C.

by tmtfairfax on Dec 16, 2011 9:11 am • link • report

@tmtfairfax; you've made the claim before, but count me skeptical.

highway express buses are great. But you've got circulation problems - and with the Transurban contract I doubt the HOT will be less "congested" than the usual beltway.

Wouldn't the HOT funding also go through the MWCOG?

by charlie on Dec 16, 2011 9:16 am • link • report

Also, how would I-95 HOT lanes help Rosslyn?

by charlie on Dec 16, 2011 9:16 am • link • report

Great news about the 'soon-to-be' new hotels in the District. Isn't this the main reason why the usage of the Convention Center is down while the terribly-located National Harbor is up?

by Shipsa01 on Dec 16, 2011 9:17 am • link • report

Shipsa01,

Partially, but National Harbor has a superior marketing firm.

by RJ on Dec 16, 2011 9:31 am • link • report

The current highway express buses on I395 are not perfectly reliable, and they do have return circulation issues (of course that HOV facility is one way, unlike the beltway or planned i95 hot lanes). They arent the equivalent of a rail line, by far, but they are still very good transit service.

And the tolls are SUPPOSED to be set to keep traffic free flowing. I'm not sure why one would expect the private operator to make them lower to get higher volumes (and hence congestion) - the experience of the Greenway has been that the operator, acting as a classical monopolist, has made them HIGHER than would be necessary to keep traffic flowing. I suppose it will depend on the exact shapes of the demand curves.

wrt Rosslyn. If you are employer in Rosslyn, and you have employees in Stafford, their logical auto route would be on on I-95 to I395 to one of the roads near the pentagon upto Rosslyn. This will shorten their commute, making you a more desirable employer for those individuals.

If you are a resident of rosslyn, I can't see that it does much for you.

BTW, several of the other TIGER grants, outside of metro DC, were more bike/ped/transit focused

by AWalkerInTheCIty on Dec 16, 2011 9:31 am • link • report

And isn't transurban lobbying to get rid of buses on the 95 HOT lanes.

Express buses from Rosslyn/Stafford were great when every intelligence agency had a back office in Rosslyn. What is left -- Dip security? BRAC shut down most of the goverment offices.

by charlie on Dec 16, 2011 9:36 am • link • report

"And isn't transurban lobbying to get rid of buses on the 95 HOT lanes. "

I havent heard that - my impression was if the total number of (non toll paying) HOV vehicles is above a certain percentage, VDOT will have to kick in cash to transurban to pay for the free use of the facility - since their economics is based on it being mostly SOV's.

The express buses would presumably be to the Pentagon and to Tysons - I wasnt necessarily thinking of express buses to Rosslyn. And surely there are still many employers in Rosslyn (judging by the office market) - not just govt offices. And I thought there were still many Dept of State back offices, not just dip security.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 16, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

Oh, I see you were addressing TMT who said "rosslyn and DC"

I would think the express buses would mainly serve Pentagon, as do the current express buses on I395. Not rosslyn. Today someone using those buses and going to rosslyn would get on the blue line at the pentagon and take it to rosslyn. I presume someone taking a bus from stafford would do the same thing.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 16, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

Transurban is under contract only the ensure speeds in the HOT are at 45 MPH.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9258/hot-lanes-and-the-arlington-lawsuit-part-2-slow-down/

And I've heard they are trying to reduce that even further.

I've always wondered what will happen with that when there in an accident, and traffic grinds to a halt.

by charlie on Dec 16, 2011 10:20 am • link • report

I suspect the reason Transurban lobbied to lower the promised speed to 45MPH was precisely because, as you say, there are things they cannot control.

I question David A's analysis. Its based on a particular assumption of the shape of the demand curve. That has not proven to be the case with the Greenway (granted there the non toll alternative is farther away).

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 16, 2011 10:30 am • link • report

Transurban is under contract only the ensure speeds in the HOT are at 45 MPH.

And I've heard they are trying to reduce that even further.

If they are trying to reduce it further, that can only mean that Transurban believes a lower toll that allows more people to use the lanes is a better business model than a higher toll that is more restrictive. If that's the case, sounds like a win-win for the middle class and Transurban.

The best case scenario is that the toll is set low enough that we achieve maximum utilization of this infrastructure.

by Falls Church on Dec 16, 2011 10:31 am • link • report

The best case scenario is that the toll is set low enough that we achieve maximum utilization of this infrastructure.

Correct, max utilization in terms of people moved. If the toll is low enough that people decide to switch from transit or carpooling to using the HOT lanes then you've slowed down the lanes for basically no benefit (oh, except to the private company collecting toll revenue!)

by MLD on Dec 16, 2011 10:42 am • link • report

@FallsChurch; the 45 MPH is the limit where the HOT lanes qualify as a transit facility. Near the beltway intersection, the HOT lanes are likely to be much much slower -- projection are near 20 MPH. Not to mention wha the regular service will be...

by charlie on Dec 16, 2011 10:42 am • link • report

. If the toll is low enough that people decide to switch from transit or carpooling to using the HOT lanes then you've slowed down the lanes for basically no benefit

The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that no new road should ever be built (any road, regardless whether there is a toll, increases the relative attraction of driving vs. transit/carpool). That's an extremist view point. If we're going to build any roads, they best way to do it is to get a private company to pay money to build the road and then have them give it to the state for free. Obviously, that's not possible, so the next best alternative is having them set the tolls low.

the 45 MPH is the limit where the HOT lanes qualify as a transit facility.

Ok, that's a reasonable argument. It's a choice between making HOT into Lexus Lanes + Express Bus OR middle class SOV. I think there's validity to both of those choices.

by Falls Church on Dec 16, 2011 11:09 am • link • report

Won't some of the HOT roadways be 3-lanes with no shoulders?

by selxic on Dec 16, 2011 11:13 am • link • report

Thanks again for keeping the Links lights on!

by Gavin on Dec 16, 2011 11:25 am • link • report

@Shipsa01

"Great news about the 'soon-to-be' new hotels in the District. Isn't this the main reason why the usage of the Convention Center is down while the terribly-located National Harbor is up? "

@RJ
"Partially, but National Harbor has a superior marketing firm.
"

National Harbor also has far superior auto access and lots of available parking. That's not just good for visitors, but greatly enables deliveries of supplies and the large displays widely used at conventions and exhibits.

And the Gaylord is one huge hotel - the largest on the East Coast.

Also, when one considers National Harbor's proximity to I-95 and the fact that the trip from DCA to National Harbor takes no longer than the trip from DCA to downtown (considering the traffic) it's hard to argue that National Harbor is "terribly-located".

Additional hotel capacity in DC is a step in the right direction that I'm honestly glad to see, but the DC Convention Center needs more than "we're close to Metro" to attract many more out-of-town conventions.

by ceefer66 on Dec 16, 2011 11:38 am • link • report

I was going to say that the I-95 HOT lanes weren't controversial, but then I read the comments above. Still, it was the I-395 HOT lanes that were really controversial, because they would have meant additional exit ramps into roads that couldn't handle the additional traffic (IIR Arlington's concerns C). The outside-the-Beltway HOT lanes won't have the sort of impact on surrounding neighborhoods that the inside-the-Beltway ones would.

by jim on Dec 16, 2011 11:38 am • link • report

@ceefer66 - from a car-centric perspective and for people who want to go to conferences and just stay at conferences, you're probably right.

Most people who fly into DCA for a conference would rather take Metro than a cab to their hotel. And when they hear that they're conference is in DC, I'm sure they think "Oh, great, this is finally my chance to see wonderful Fort Washington (or wherever it is) and go to the same steakhouse and dueling piano bar every night!" They want to be close to the museums, monuments, sites, etc.

So yes, you're right that the DC Convention Center uses the Metro for branding - but why shouldn't they? By being close to the Metro it gives people access to the entire city and all DC has to offer. Gaylord can't compete with that.

by Shipsa01 on Dec 16, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report

"Oh, great, this is finally my chance to see wonderful Fort Washington (or wherever it is) and go to the same steakhouse and dueling piano bar every night!" They want to be close to the museums, monuments, sites, etc."

not that its the same thing, but, aside from the multiple restaurants IN National Harbor, there is also water taxi service to Old Town Alexandria. Which has a lot more than one steakhouse.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 16, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

I'm not sure any portion of the HOT lanes hasn't been controversial. It's important to remember the early phases are existing lanes that are being converted from HOV to HOT. People don't like tolls for something that wasn't a toll before. I'm not imagining a great amount of increased traffic going to local roads simply because of entrance and exit ramp placement, but I imagine inside the beltway would be better suited for additional capacity without great interchange projects.

by selxic on Dec 16, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

@AWalkerInTheCity - fair enough; apologies for the little hyperbole. And you're right about the water taxi. It is an option. Though I do have a strong hunch that no one going to a conference there between November to March will make the effort to see Old Town by Water Taxi.

by Shipsa01 on Dec 16, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

National Harbor charges $20/day for parking.

by Tina on Dec 16, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report

Most people who fly into DCA for a conference would rather take Metro than a cab to their hotel

Most people (likely) would rather expense a taxi ride to their hotel than load onto metro then walk how many ever blocks to their hotel.

by HogWash on Dec 16, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report

"Though I do have a strong hunch that no one going to a conference there between November to March will make the effort to see Old Town by Water Taxi. "

It was 65 degrees last night. This is washington, not Boston.

course some folks can't stand the cold. Im not sure those folks are going to walk from metro though.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 16, 2011 1:16 pm • link • report

It depends on the conference, sure, but I think HogWash is closer to the truth here. Most conference attendees are traveling on someone else's dime, and will be fully reimbursed for a cab. These people are not going to spend time trying to figure out how to reach the hotel using transit; they'll just go to the cab stand and pay whatever that costs.

Of course, even if I had a free cab, I'd rather not be trapped at National Harbor, but maybe that's just me.

by Gray on Dec 16, 2011 1:51 pm • link • report

Most people arriving at DCA and going to a conference are loaded down with luggage and are tired. They are usually not inclined to decipher the METRO map (which is quite complicated at first glance) and then walk some unknown distance in a strange city -- it is much easier and smarter to take a cab because it saves your energy for more important things, such as preparing for the conference or figuring out where to get dinner.

Whenever I go to a conference I either rent a car or take a cab. When I come back I always take a cab because it is a reimbursable business expense.

by goldfish on Dec 16, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report

Most people (likely) would rather expense a taxi ride to their hotel than load onto metro then walk how many ever blocks to their hotel.

I can't agree with this more. I never cab when traveling for personal travel, but definetly when on work. When its paid for by someone else. Particularly when I'm wearing a suit and carrying a lot of materials (and coming back to my house or leaving with them)

by JA on Dec 16, 2011 2:26 pm • link • report

TOTALLY agree with Gray. Whenever I travel on business to NYC, Atlanta, L.A. or various other cities with public transit, I'M NOT ABOUT TO sit there and try to decipher the transit map, walk an unknown distance with all my luggage, worry about my personal safety, etc. It's so much easier to just take a cab. If someone wants to go see the D.C. monuments, museums, etc. they can just take a cab (remember their company is paying for it!) or use the various shuttle buses from National Harbor which run frequently.

Also, National Harbor doesn't charge $21 a day for parking. It's actually $11 per day parking. (I know because I've been to conferences there and several events recently.)

Also, I feel the conference facilities there are more superior as far as layout, functionality, design, technological connectivity, etc. The meeting space is very well-thought-out from a meeting room/ballroom perspective, and the banquet catering was actually very high-quality.

Plus, hasn't there been atleast 2-3 shootings/killings and other violent crimes in the past 2 years within 1 block of the D.C. Convention Center? Yep, pretty sure I saw that in the news. There's no way I feel safe in that area after dark.

I actualy feel safer in National Harbor because they seem to take their security seriously. It's very visible there during all times of the day and night. I think that's why they really haven't had a problem with crime thus far. With the serious investment dollars there, I strongly doubt they would ever let it go downhill.

Also, the Water Taxi (as someone mentioned) is actually ENCLOSED and HEATED so wintertime doesn't really make a difference. I've taken it several times across the river in the cold/rainy weather to Old Town Alexandria.

Just my two cents...

by DS on Dec 16, 2011 4:21 pm • link • report

@Shipsa01,
"Most people who fly into DCA for a conference would rather take Metro than a cab to their hotel."

"Most people"? Are you certain?

Why would "most people" do that? Why would business travelers do that when they can get reimbursed for the cost of taking a cab?

How many business travelers (the people who mostly attend conferences) do you REALLY know who would take the subway from the airport then WALK from the subway WITH LUGGAGE to a hotel in a strange city? Are you serious?

@@Shipsa01,
"And when they hear that they're conference is in DC, I'm sure they think "Oh, great, this is finally my chance to see wonderful Fort Washington (or wherever it is) and go to the same steakhouse and dueling piano bar every night!" They want to be close to the museums, monuments, sites, etc."

That's quite witty, but as someone who actually DOES attend conferences, I can tell you that the average conference attendee DOESN'T HAVE MUCH TIME to leave the conference venue, ESPECIALLY when they have to justify the cost of attending a work-related conference. As for choosing between the "museums and monuments vs. Fort Washington and the piano bar" the choice is moot for most because they won't be going off-site unless it's a conference-sponsored outing.

Now some might make the time to leave the venue - if they have friends and/or relatives in town or if they're the type who are inclined to "check out the city". I have. But whether the local sights are the Smithsonian or "wonderful Fort Washington", is of hardly any concern to the average conference attendee. The most important factor - to planners, sponsors, and attendees alike - is accessibility.
And National Harbor beats the Convention Center hands down.

Now there is a segment of the convention market that will always prefer an in-town location - and they will put up with the traffic and scarce parking. I have. But you can't discount the fact that many conventions prefer convenient automobile accesibilty, no matter how much you might dislike the fact that it's "car-dependent".

That's why National Harbor is thriving - to the point of eating the DC Convention Center's lunch.

I can tell you don't like it. but it's true.

by ceefer66 on Dec 16, 2011 4:21 pm • link • report

Why all the hate about national harbor? Just add an extension of metrorail across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and everybody wins. Seems to me NHBR compliments the variety that Washington area has to offer.

by localboy on Dec 16, 2011 4:27 pm • link • report

@DS -
1) when I went to a conference at NH 2 yrs ago the only prking avlable was 20/day.
2) you sound like a paid PR person for NH.

by Tina on Dec 16, 2011 4:32 pm • link • report

@ceefer66 is totally hitting the nail on the head. I agree with you 100%.

by DS on Dec 16, 2011 4:39 pm • link • report

"Why all the hate about national harbor? Just add an extension of metrorail across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and everybody wins. "

Who wins? Taxpayers who have to pay for it? I'd much rather see limited transit funds go to other projects than out to that monstrosity.

If, as several commentators suggest, National Harbor is doing just fine, then they don't need it. If, as I suspect, National Harbor fails to attract any other uses besides overpriced shopping mall and convention center, then I don't see why regional taxpayers should have to pay to bail it out.

by Tim Krepp on Dec 16, 2011 4:53 pm • link • report

The HOT lanes here in NoVA have been highly controversial, and many, many of us are opposed to them, in large part due to the contracts the Commonwealth has signed Transurban. Many of us would much rather see VDOT run them, if they need exist.

by dcseain on Dec 16, 2011 4:56 pm • link • report

ceefer, you're 100% right - I don't like it. I live next to the Convention Center and would love to see it thrive (and help the area). I'm frustrated that this building of hotels didn't happen years ago. But anyway, no sense looking back. I'm just hoping that when that does happen, we can right the wrong that DC (allowed?) let happen.

Also, I'll concede the argument about taking Metro to a hotel - ok, so you're getting reimbursed, fine. Makes sense. But in terms of giving people options for after convention - no way, under any circumstances, does National Harbor hold a candle to DC's Convention Center.

by Shipsa01 on Dec 16, 2011 5:03 pm • link • report

Shipsa01: I agree with you here:

"But in terms of giving people options for after convention - no way, under any circumstances, does National Harbor hold a candle to DC's Convention Center."

But I've been to way too many conferences whose organizers thought nothing of what attendees might do outside of the conference activities. I just don't think that's a primary concern of organizers--and maybe most attendees, too. I'm willing to accept that my strong preferences for interesting conference locations are not the norm.

by Gray on Dec 16, 2011 6:13 pm • link • report

@Tim Krepp

................"Who wins? Taxpayers who have to pay for it? I'd much rather see limited transit funds go to other projects than out to that monstrosity.

If, as several commentators suggest, National Harbor is doing just fine, then they don't need it. If, as I suspect, National Harbor fails to attract any other uses besides overpriced shopping mall and convention center, then I don't see why regional taxpayers should have to pay to bail it out."...................

Your reply is an example of why I ask about all the hate directed at National Harbor- it really shows ignorance or stupidity. Your use of the words "out to that monstrosity" provide an example- monstrosity is nothing more than your opinion and your reference to out implying a large distance which happens to be a stone's throw from the DC boundary at Wilson Bridge?

Your argument about public funding for transit holds water, but you don't offer alternatives. Perhaps you rather spend monies on transit for rail out to Dulles or the ICC, Hot Lanes? I submit to you that a link to NHBR provides benefits to all communities and adds to interstate commerce.

Finally, while NHBR may not be doing well, they seem to be doing better than most people would like- getting back to my hate question. You again show your hate and glee when you suggest they will fail to attract any other uses besides overpriced shopping mall (its not a mall BTW) and convention center. This has me really perplexed- overpriced compared to what?? any other uses? How about sold out office building spaces and new spec office, condos, stores, hotels, restaurants, Childrens Museum(coming), apartments, town houses. Have you even been there??

So again I ask- why the hate toward National Harbor??? We should embrace all new developments that make the region more diverse, especially ones that already exist and share in the prosperity as a region instead of individual enclaves pitted against one another. I know I am on a tangent but related to this is our local county and city governments fighting each other to land corporate headquarters in their jurisdiction by offering tax incentives at tax payer expense and surrounding jurisdiction demise and jealousy- Can't we all just get along? (Rodney King)

Okay, enough... replys welcome...

by localboy on Dec 16, 2011 7:08 pm • link • report

National Harbour negotiated very favorable multi-year contracts for meetings. Unfortunately, many large meetings here are attended by DC area residents. People from DC and MoCo find the location extremely inconvenient. Out of towners find the expensive access to Old Town and the airport a barrier. I know of meetings that went there once, enticed by low, introductory prices which will never go back. It didn't help that the facility had problems with fundamentals like plumbing. That National Harbour is planning to add an outlet mall suggests they have limited faith in their own project and it's at a time when outlet malls are dying in other cities. My guess is that it needs the weekend trade to survive. When I've been there for meetings the shops and restaurants have not been very busy.

by Rich on Dec 16, 2011 7:27 pm • link • report

@localboy, um, yeah, I hope I didn't give the impression that "monstrosity" was some sort of objective judgement. Of course it's my opinion! What else would I write? Someone else's opinion?

And to answer your question, just about anything would be a better use of transit money. If I had to pick a single one, my personal choice would be a separate Orange line tunnel and to separate the Blue/Orange line through DC.

You say it benefits "all communities". I live in DC. How does National Harbor benefit my community?

Generally, I think taking hundreds of acres of wetlands, slapping a giant, self contained, development with absolutely zero transit links, all the while much more sensible in-fill developments go wanting for financing is just about the height of corporate irresponsibility.

I've been there many times. As a tour guide, I often met groups there. Many of these people were quite disappointed that they had come to a convention billed as being "in DC", only to find they were pretty much as isolated from Washington as you can get locally.

I stopped taking gigs out there because a. it's too hard for me to get to and b. I was tired of listening to customers who were justifiably upset they had come to a conference in "Washington" only to find they had to take a shuttle bus to get anywhere close.

I don't think I hate National Harbor, but I have a good deal of contempt for it. It's a bad idea, poorly implemented. And I'd say that my contempt is neither ignorant nor stupid.

by Tim Krepp on Dec 16, 2011 8:42 pm • link • report

If you want to preserve affordable housing or create it, advocate for maintaining apartment buildings as apartments or creating more apartment buildings. This affordable condo thing (advocated by most on this blog) is just a sham, and I'm glad someone finally here at least hinted about it, even though most of the damage has been done.

Buildings with all rentals is the fastest way, it seems to me, to ensure that a large chunk of housing can be kept affordable.

People throw out ideas like, more condos! without acknowledging all the issues that come with living in a condo, and to a lesser extent apartments. (I say lesser extent because there’s for the most part no discussion of renting, I find. And if there’s been any proposal on this blog for a rental apartment building I must have missed it.)

The condo fees can be awful, sometimes more than the mortgage. This just highlights the lack of a spotlight on the lack of governing mechanisms most of us live under in condos AND apartment buildings.

This blog has been in existence for a long time now, but the nuts and bolts discussion about these things hardly ever takes place. And to be fair, it's taking place nowhere else either.

by Jazzy on Dec 17, 2011 7:31 am • link • report

Charlie - Transurban is required to keep traffic on the HOT Lanes free flowing at specific speeds or its pays penalties to VDOT. As congestion rises, so too do the tolls. Higher prices equals less demand and less congestion. Express buses will be accommodated. The only spot that will have backup problems will be the north end of the Lanes as drivers bound for Maryland hit the Beltway. But buses will terminate their runs before this point.

by tmtfairfax on Dec 17, 2011 9:16 am • link • report

I don't know bout the plexiglass shields. What if the driver has a heart attack and someone needs to take control of the bus to bring it to a safe stop?

by Doug on Dec 17, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report

I would suggest that transit to National Harbor is a lower priority than several others, though not off the list completely. At some point a transit connection between Alex and PG via the Wilson bridge will make sense, and at that point there will certainly be a station not far from NH, and it may makes sense to extend the Anacostia street car/LRT to NH.

As for conferences, some involve more free time and some less. Its not surprising that those who have signed up for a tour of DC would be particularly disappointed by NH's location.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 17, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report

While transit to NH is probably a lower priority, it's also cheaper than most other proposals. A line that originated at Franconia-Springfield, ran along the Blue Line tracks to the Alexandria Yard leads, then connected into the Yellow Line tracks through Eisenhower Avenue then ran along new construction across the bridge would have connectivity to both Yellow and Blue and require only a few miles of new track.

There is some urgency in getting rails onto the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Otherwise the officially designated transit lanes are likely to turn into HOT lanes.

by jim on Dec 17, 2011 1:23 pm • link • report

I live across the river from National Harbor. I'll be the first to agree that it's a monstrosity, and having biked over there a few times (notwithstanding the fact that their policies are generally anti-bike), I find little of interest in the shops (or prices) there.

Not to mention that, if you don't have a car, you're pretty much isolated as Tim mentioned earlier. No other place to walk to within reasonable range. A crappy, UNPAVED bike connection to the Wilson Bridge, and limited bus service...basically a bus every 30 minutes during the day, no later than 11pm, and at that only to Branch Ave Metro. There is the water taxi to Old Town that someone else mentioned, but that's an $8 one-way fare...not exactly cheap.

by Froggie on Dec 17, 2011 6:44 pm • link • report

HOT lanes are "hot"...Fluor/Transurban and other companies are lining them up all across the country. "Free roads!" to cash-strapped states is the common theme.
The deal VA signed with these companies on 495 was terribly unbalanced in favor of them, and the contract is for way too long. Even heavy proponents of highway construction should recoil at this. For the percentage of state and federal dollars in this project, the state might as well have built it themselves. Besides the contract, from a construction standpoint, I think VDOT managed/is managing the mixing bowl/Wilson/south beltway re-build a lot better than Fluor/T is the west beltway.

Too bad i-95 HOT lanes will be half done and I-66 HOT lanes will be under construction before the DC area public knows what hit them. Folks are going to be PISSED paying 20 bucks to drive 10 miles.

by stevek_fairfax on Dec 17, 2011 9:39 pm • link • report