As much as I do not want to see an outer beltway I am not sure I buy the study you linked. While I agree it will not significantly reduce current traffic on the beltway it will provide an option for drivers, and reduce future demand.

I have taken the ICC several times and it has shortened almost every commute I used before. I was able to get from Gaithersburg to College Park during rush hour in about 30 minutes, a commute that would have taken almost twice as long otherwise. Thus it removed me from the beltway at least.

by Matt R on Dec 19, 2011 10:55 am • link • report

@Matt R

You might have stopped using the beltway, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't just come and take your spot.

by Alex B. on Dec 19, 2011 10:58 am • link • report

I agree that induced demand ought to be a concern. It's an issue w/ new highways that are built from scratch that run through less developed areas, but it's also an issue when we widen current highways. But, I don't agree with the view that some people have that any and all new road construction is bad b/c of induced demand. I think we need to compromise by appeasing transit supporters with new projects and enforcing a policy of preservation near the highways that are meant to be more of a bypass than anything. Limit the number of exits and change the zoning and do other things. We do need to become less biased towards roads as a whole, but I think we should be able to build new roads and build transit and denser development. Many of the problems we have are due to having to pick and choose and ideologues controlling the debate.

by Vik on Dec 19, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

My disappointment: the southern route is just inefficient, making the trip much longer than it needs to be because it goes in a northwest direction to connect with 370.

In the end, though, it probably could have been done for cheaper with a wide boulevard rather than a highway.

by JustMe on Dec 19, 2011 11:13 am • link • report

The outer beltway -- the black helicopter of the smart growth set. Is there any evidence of it existing?

I got to drive the ICC. Agreed, it goes too far north. And the signing on 95 was very confusing.

Why can't all our expressways be that smooth?

the idea of a wide "boulevard" is interesting. Rt 50/Arlington Blvd in Arlington is a good example. On most days, I can get to the border of Falls Church within 10 minutes and only hit on light. For once, Arlington is auto-friendly! But the impact is far less than a giant freeway. If anything, the area around 66 (which I live next to) is less developed than the Rt 50 corridor.

by charlie on Dec 19, 2011 11:25 am • link • report

Anyone interested in these issues--or uninterested in them for this matter--should check out Douglas Willinger's excellent cri du cerveau:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/10/ectc-paid-to-riot-via-covington-burling.html

Hugely entertaining.

by oboe on Dec 19, 2011 11:25 am • link • report

I don't know about the Outer Beltway in particular but I do know that there is a significant demand for people who want to work, live, and play all within the bounds of a car-oriented environment. Creating an environment for those folks does not preclude the development of walkable, new urbanism development in other aras (as long as cars are restricted from entering the walkable environment). Isn't it possible to build environments for both sets of people?

I know some will argue that the cost of building/maintaining the car-oriented environment is greater than the tax revenue it can generate. That is, the car-oriented environment can only exist if subsidized by the walkable/transit environments. If that's the case, show me the numbers and I'll agree that car-oriented is not economically feasible.

As long as the car-oriented folks are restricted from bringing their cars into the transit oriented areas, can't the two groups co-exist?

Everyone should have the choice to take an express bus or light rail instead of a highway.

This seems to be the crux of the argument. Does *everyone* want to live in a transit-oriented area? I think the answer is many people do (including myself) but not *everyone*. Is it economically feasible to have both good transit and wide, free-flowing highways in the same area? I think the answer is "no".

by Falls Church on Dec 19, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

charlie: Are you serious? Bob Chase's group is constantly lobbying for it, and he has op-eds in various places periodically advocating for it. The 2030 Group has millions of dollars and paid Chase and Rich Parsons to do a study which promoted the Outer Beltway (which they call "more Potomac River bridges" and "the Western Transportation Corridor"). The Commonwealth Transportation Board gave the WTC a "corridor of statewide significance" designation to help it move ahead. The Examiner periodically editorializes in favor of it (and against transit). So there's no evidence the Outer Beltway is a serious push, if you simply pretend that Bob Chase, Rich Parsons, Til Hazel, Stephen Fuller, the 2030 Group, Sean Connaughton, VDOT, and the CTB all don't exist.

by David Alpert on Dec 19, 2011 11:39 am • link • report

Oh, and like I said, I don't know all the particulars of the Outer Beltway (like maybe it's a bad idea because of the particular way it's planned) but conceptually, it seems like a good way to build the self-contained auto-oriented environment, if you buy that such a thing should exist.

by Falls Church on Dec 19, 2011 11:42 am • link • report

"The outer beltway -- the black helicopter of the smart growth set. Is there any evidence of it existing?"

That items in the state transport board whatever, that CSG keeps touting. Im pretty sure not only is MoCo against it, but so if FFX County, and even Loudoun (at least the previous bd of supervisors) I guess PWC is for the tricounty parkway, and I guess there are Loudoun business interests for a bridge to link to the ICC. I guess the politics is complicated.

@falls church

of course in theory folks who want an auto oriented lifestyle can live more or less near where they work (but dont have to be walkable of course). Say someone who lives in Leesburg area and commutes to Ashburn. Or in Ashburn and commutes to Reston. Or who commutes peripherally (from PWC to ashburn on 28, say) The issue here is that its a major cost to bridge the river. Is it worth it to make it easier for commuters from upper MoCo to the Dulles area? Esp if that will mean shifting new employment to the Dulles area what otherwise might have gone to Tysons? Im not ruling that out, but merely stating that the economics of building a crossing and an associated superhighway is different from that of auto focused boulevards say.

For an example of auto focused boulevards in an area that will have transit, though wil certainly remain auto focused, Loudoun County is a good example. Even without an outer beltway its likely to remain the domain of the auto.

Can everyone have express bus service? while the density needed for express bus service is low enough that you can (and WMATA and other operators do) run it typical low density suburbs, most folks wont be able to walk to it - if driving to an express bus stop/parknride and then taking a not SO frequent express bus to a metro station is good transit, than yeah, almost everyone can have it. If its not "good" than probably no.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 19, 2011 11:44 am • link • report

David - you could not be more incorrect about an outer beltway. The notion of "build it and they will come" misses the point that they are all already here - and will keep coming. Are you in favor of forcing people to move further away from job centers, such as those who commute from WV and PA? Have you seen any of the projections for the growth anticipated for DC in the next 40 years? Where do you think all these people will go - in high rises in downtown Bethesda?

Yes, there are those whose self-interests (re: Til Hazel) promote certain ideas - but at the same time, other self-interests (e.g., JBG) whose landholdings are on top of existing infrastructure will counter them.

An outer beltway would help the tens of thousands of people who are CURRENTLY stuck on the legion bridge daily, adding to commutes, reducing quality of life, increasing pollution. By ignoring the fact that it is currently at a crisis point, and only going to get worse, you do a disservice to your argument.

Unfortunately, MoCo and Fairfax did not keep a right of way open for a crossing, so it will be next-to-impossible to run any kind of infrastructure through.

by Steven on Dec 19, 2011 11:45 am • link • report

The tirade by Mr. Alpert is pointless since it's extremely unlikely that any other part of "the Outer Beltway" will be constructed on this side of the Potomac for a very large number of reasons. The possibility *is* likely in Virginia though, especially considering the wingnuts who dominate the state government and PWC.

While I definitely agree that the money used for the ICC could have been better used by funding better transit in PGC and MC (Purple Line, CCT, Southern MD Light Rail), it definitely is a beneficial road--it's cut my trips from Germantown to Baltimore/BWI by at least 15min (more if there's traffic on the Beltway). It's really disappointing that so many GGW contributors have such extremist views and don't seem to understand that compromise is more reasonable and realistic.

by King Terrapin on Dec 19, 2011 11:45 am • link • report

While there may not be a need for an outer beltway, there is no need for us to have to sit in hours of traffic because of all the jobs are concentrated here. And dreaming that all these new condo or apartment buildings in already congested areas will solve the transportation and suburban sprawl woes just doesn't cut when they are all designed as 1 and 2 bedrooms. NYC is a perfect example just a couple of miles away to show where DC is headed. Traffic is a nightmeare just about everywhere there. I wish people would work together verses on disjointed tracks to encourage companies to relocate to cities with declining population (they already have unused infrastructure built), encourage telecommuting, encourage buying and producing locally, design total streets and design sustainable communities that have not too much of any one thing. Small cities and towns with a good mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural land all mostly within walking distance. Why can't cities here be smaller and more like those in Europe?

by cassie on Dec 19, 2011 11:51 am • link • report

"It's really disappointing that so many GGW contributors have such extremist views and don't seem to understand that compromise is more reasonable and realistic."

davids op ed, if I read it rightly, implied support for investments to increase capacity on I66 (DTR to Ballston I suppose) and work on interchanges on rte 7. Unlike some commentators here, he did not oppose all investment in highway capacity.

"Have you seen any of the projections for the growth anticipated for DC in the next 40 years? Where do you think all these people will go - in high rises in downtown Bethesda? "

Inevitably many will. Of those who dont, many will end up in the new developments in Loudoun and NW PWC - and the former at least will be able to commute to the Dulles area without needing an outer beltway. Others will end up on the south and east sides of the metro area (and also will likely not benefit from an outer beltway) I dont know how many upper MoCo can absorb - I suspect not many. And of course many of those will commute to lower MoCo or to DC. Or to Tysons. How much is it worth to make it easier for them to commute to the Dulles Corridor?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 19, 2011 11:56 am • link • report

"Don't build it, and they won't come" has been a huge failure. People in PG, Anne Arundel, and Howard Counties have a huge need to get themselves and get goods over to Montgomery County, even without an outer beltway or the ICC I cannot conceive of any way in which it is a good idea to have all of this traffic on the Beltway.

by JustMe on Dec 19, 2011 11:58 am • link • report

@Falls Church,

You quoted the wrong part of that sentence. The emphasis should be on "choice." Everyone should have a "choice" and city planners should not be in the business locking people into a single mode of transportation.

Imagine if city neighborhoods had no sidewalks and the only viable mode of transportation was two 4ft wide bike lanes.

In that same vein, by building car-dependent neighborhoods, one is forced to use a car even if he or she would rather bike, walk, or take public transpiration. A full bus takes 30-40 cars off the road.

As is often discussed on this website, density is what allows neighborhoods and small businesses to thrive. Transportation options make that density possible. No one is forcing you or anyone to live in dense parts of the metropolitan area, we just want “choice.”

by cmc on Dec 19, 2011 11:59 am • link • report

The issue here is that its a major cost to bridge the river. Is it worth it to make it easier for commuters from upper MoCo to the Dulles area? Esp if that will mean shifting new employment to the Dulles area what otherwise might have gone to Tysons?

These are all a good questions and requires economic analysis to answer. However, it seems to be different than Alpert's argument which I take issue with (his argument seems to be that no auto-oriented environment should be built anywhere).

Perhaps, bridging the Potomac isn't worth the cost and perhaps it will siphon Tysons development to Dulles. But, it's also possible that there exists a significant number of people who won't work in a place like Tysons because of the difficulty of going from their car-oriented environment to Tysons' (future) transit-oriented environment. So, perhaps there's enough development to be had so that you can have growth in Dulles without siphoning off growth from Tysons. By providing both types of options, perhaps we'll be siphoning off growth from other parts of the country instead.

And, maybe you don't build another Potomac crossing because it's two expensive and the outer beltway is wholly contained within VA.

if driving to an express bus stop/parknride and then taking a not SO frequent express bus to a metro station is good transit, than yeah, almost everyone can have it.

Ah, yes you can have transit that takes you from the auto-oriented areas to the transit-oriented place. In fact, that's a must since transit-oriented places restrict the number of cars coming in. What you can't have is both free-flowing roads and transit that takes you between two auto-oriented places. My understanding is that's the purpose of the Outer Beltway (to take you between auto-oriented places).

by Falls Church on Dec 19, 2011 12:02 pm • link • report

@dalpert; funny. Every name you drop seems to be on the Virginia side. Until and unless there is a commitment by Maryland to run a bridge and freeway through upper Montogomery County the outer beltway is a ghost to scare children with.

There is a need for something like an "outer beltway" in Virginia for getting N-S. I think a better position for GGW to take is work with that need and find a way to advocate for ideas that will increase density and reduce commtue times. The idea of a boulveard style ICC is nice for that reason -- although I doubt it is perfect.

by charlie on Dec 19, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report

Induced demand is a little too pat an answer. It's real, but there are a number of problems with using it to argue against building roads.

First, it proves too much. Following the logic, all new roads are useless because they "solve" nothing. It defies logic to say we should never build (and never should have built) roads. Second, the second word in "induced demand" is "demand". The theory states that the road itself creates all or virtually all of the demand. That's absurd. What it does is at most lower the cost of transportation to a given set of destinations. The demand is there already. Perhaps a better phrase than "induced demand" is "goosed demand".

by Crickey7 on Dec 19, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

@AWalkerInTheCity

All he said is that it's "smarter" to invest in spot improvements than build a new highway due to the economic malaise we're in. What's "smarter" than than spot improvements to I-66 is Rt. 7 is transit, is what wasn't said. And the beginning of the Op-Ed talks about how I-270 is no better now than in the '90s, which would mean that it was a waste. Not saying David supports this view, but I've heard some people say that we should only do the bare minimum to maintain road infrastructure to get people to take transit.

We've had plenty of discussions about road infrastructure before, and w/ every one of them, including spot improvements, induced demand is brought up as a detriment to doing it. I believe in the phenomenon of induced demand, but we need to figure out a way to mitigate its effects.

I just don't like how this issue is just another that has been politicized and made into a right/left thing. That has infiltrated the places where we enact policies and it's wrong. There are a lot of issues planning and transportation related that we have to fix, IMO. I think if our local roads, never mind highways, were designed in a more efficient way, a lot of the congestion that frustrates so many would be improved. All of these issues are somehow politicized, though.

by Vik on Dec 19, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report

In that same vein, by building car-dependent neighborhoods, one is forced to use a car even if he or she would rather bike, walk, or take public transpiration.

The reality is that you can't have an auto-oriented place that is also walkable. There's a tradeoff between orienting a place toward cars vs. people because their needs are in conflict (for example, cars need free parking and wide roads that can be driven at high speeds; walkers/bikers need traffic-calming and minimal setbacks). So, the way to create choice is by creating areas that are auto-oriented AND places that are people-oriented. Folks are then free to live where they would like.

by Falls Church on Dec 19, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report

"re: Outer Beltway"

I think it's a terrible idea for the exurbs, and just throws bad money after good. So in a general sense, I'm against it. But as @Falls Church says, people should be allowed to make their own decisions. Also, I think that as populations self-sort as we've seen over the last decade or more, people who are more urbanist will tend to settle in the urban core (or "cores"), and those who are opposed to such lifestyles will self-select for the exurban sprawl areas.

As someone who thinks that the close-in areas are pretty much the only sustainable hope for the future, I think this kind of self-reinforcing feedback loop is a good thing. What we've tended to have is sprawl-friendly policies in the exurbs, and a poor facsimile of such policies in the close-in areas. It's only been over the last decade or two that we've seen a clear alternative coming into focus.

So, I'm with Falls Church. While I think this sort of growth model is slow economic (and cultural) suicide, I think it's inevitable as the Great Sort continues, and as an urban-dweller, I will stand to benefit personally from these poor decisions.

Obviously the folks who support such policies support them because they believe the opposite will be the case.

by oboe on Dec 19, 2011 12:13 pm • link • report

davids op ed, if I read it rightly, implied support for investments to increase capacity on I66 (DTR to Ballston I suppose) and work on interchanges on rte 7. Unlike some commentators here, he did not oppose all investment in highway capacity.

And, frankly, those are the wrong places to build road capacity. I oppose expanding 66 capacity inside the beltway because we shouldn't be bringing more cars into our transit-oriented areas. The playground for cars should be built away from transit-oriented areas, much like the Outer Beltway would do.

by Falls Church on Dec 19, 2011 12:19 pm • link • report

"There is a need for something like an "outer beltway" in Virginia for getting N-S. I think a better position for GGW to take is work with that need and find a way to advocate for ideas that will increase density and reduce commtue times. The idea of a boulveard style ICC is nice for that reason -- although I doubt it is perfect."

While a tricounty parkway without the potomac crossing would be less expensive and more defensible, I am still skeptical that it would be our highest priority in NoVa. It seems like the main purpose is to keep development going in NW PWC (remember when we stopped Disney to keep that area rural?) and to generally support property values of existing houses in PWC. How congested is rte 28 anyway? How much more employment growth is going to the Dulles area and how much should go there? and as Falls Church asks (or seems to) if we dont build the N-S capacity to enable that growth - does it go to Tysons instead, or does it leave the region? And as Cassie asks - if it leaves the region, how bad a thing is that? And as Vik implies David A would really want to ask - is LRT on Rte 28 feasible?

Either way, I am not sold on any big new NS road west of Rte 28.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 19, 2011 12:21 pm • link • report

People seem to assume that if an outer beltway is built there will still be money to improve transit in and around DC. Guess what? This will be a zero sum game, any money that goes to an outer beltway will be money taken away from better options to move the people already here. We then need to prioritize. The aggregate effects of putting the billions required for the outer beltway into a bevy of smaller (and big) projects around Northern Va. would suit the state and the region much more.

(and traffic is only bad in NYC if you try to drive a vehicle around/in/out of manhattan)

by Canaan on Dec 19, 2011 12:29 pm • link • report

I wish people would work together verses on disjointed tracks to encourage companies to relocate to cities with declining population (they already have unused infrastructure built), encourage telecommuting, encourage buying and producing locally, design total streets and design sustainable communities that have not too much of any one thing. Small cities and towns with a good mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural land all mostly within walking distance.

Exactly. And a major part of the problem is the insistence by the federal government on excessive centralization of government activities here in Washington. This centralization encourages an ever-burgeoning number of government-dependent businesses to also locate a growing portion of their business here, rather than in cities and towns elsewhere in the country. And the effect is already obvious: a transportation infrastructure - both transit and automotive - that is overwhelmed by existing demand, let alone the likely future demand, and beyond any hope of sufficient expansion, based on the likely funding available.

by Arl Fan on Dec 19, 2011 12:45 pm • link • report

Distressingly, Metro's skyrocketing fares are only encouraging more people to return to their cars. If getting to jobs in the central employment centers becomes burdensome, a great many employers may decide to relocate operations further out. It's happened before and can again. Think Reston, Dulles, Gaithersburg, and so on. Another push outward will almost undoubtedly lead to outer beltway.

by sage on Dec 19, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report

As knowledge work continues to be more important, this sort of urban clustering is going to become more important, not less. Which is also why telecommuting is going to fail as a solution to our congestion problems.

There is a very small subset of the workforce who can telecommute effectively--on the one hand, the most specialized of knowledge-workers are most effective in close proximity to one another. On the other end of the spectrum, the guy who hangs drywall, or the guy who makes your latte aren't going to be phoning it in.

Really, the best fit is telephone-based piece-work. Things like call-center support, etc... I doubt we're going to see more than a small bump in the percentage of teleworkers over the medium- to long-term.

by oboe on Dec 19, 2011 12:56 pm • link • report

If there is anything that would make this website irrelevant it would be more such articles as this. The Outer Beltway is/was/will be a great idea and we suffer daily because it wasn't done back in the 1970's. Maryland's 'shambles' of their highway budget has everything to do with mindless spending...it does not make what they tried to do wrong. Maryland has a long, long, long history of mismanagement, insider dealing on contracts, over-spending, etc. But, we need more ways to move people...not everyone can walk or ride a bike for crying out loud.

by Pelham1861 on Dec 19, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report

Despite his dangerous and willful summoning of The Willinger, I have to agree with oboe. The Great Sort is underway, and while we can look on the sidelines in sorrow, I'm not sure what we can, or should, do to prevent the exurbs from slow self destruction.

David is quite right to decry projects as the outer beltway, but it's far, far more important to fight FOR good projects than AGAINST bad ones.

by Tim Krepp on Dec 19, 2011 1:25 pm • link • report

If the Outer Beltway - or Outer Bypass - "induces" long-distance traffic to go AROUND our area as opposed to going THROUGH it and thereby contributing to congestion like it does now, then I'm all for any "induced demand" the Outer Beltway might create.

by ceefer66 on Dec 19, 2011 1:26 pm • link • report

If Maryland's transportation budget is in a "shambles" because of the ICC, it's because the cost of materials and labor to build the ICC increased mutli-fold while Governor Paris Glendening indulged ICC opponents with endless "studies" in search of a reason to abandon the project. Whenever a study failed to produce findings to their liking, opponents demanded -and got - another expensive, time-consuming study. Then there were the frivolous lawsuits from oppnents - and appeals whevever they lost.

The ICC could have been built for under a $1 billion as recently as 1998 when Glendening caved in to environmentalists, stopped further study, and tried to kill the project by selling off the right of way. Luckily then-comptroller William Donald Shaeffer was able to stop him.

by ceefer66 on Dec 19, 2011 1:37 pm • link • report

"The Great Sort is underway, and while we can look on the sidelines in sorrow, I'm not sure what we can, or should, do to prevent the exurbs from slow self destruction. "

Oh good grief, another drinks the kool aid? Loudoun is growing in employment, population and income. What suburban counties (exurbs? Thats another thing - who hear says exurbs? That referred to rural towns with long distance commuters, common in greater NY at one time - not really applicable to Loudoun, or even Stafford, much less to PG) are in trouble? Mainly PG, with a bad population/employment mix, and racial issues as well. Not Loudoun, not Fairfax, not MoCo, and arguably not even PWC or Stafford (though I would count those latter two as the closest other counties to PGs issues).

Ultimately theres too much growth in the region for any jurisdiction to get into really bad trouble. Theres enough demand to float both the autocentric and TOD boats.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 19, 2011 1:41 pm • link • report

"If the Outer Beltway - or Outer Bypass - "induces" long-distance traffic to go AROUND our area as opposed to going THROUGH it and thereby contributing to congestion like it does now, then I'm all for any "induced demand" the Outer Beltway might create. "

someone going from Baltimore to Richmond, is going to go down I95, then west on the ICC, then across to the tricounty parkway?

Wasnt that the arguement for the eastern bypass - that its a more direct route for bypass traffic?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 19, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report

There is a very small subset of the workforce who can telecommute effectively--on the one hand, the most specialized of knowledge-workers are most effective in close proximity to one another.The more creativity required by the category of knowledge-workers in question, the more true this is. I'm doubtful that the legal professionals who make up a large portion of the highest-end knowledge workers in the DC area benefit greatly from interacting with each other in the office.

And I think very few of the government jobs in DC fit into this category of specialized knowledge-workers. In many agencies, opposition to increased telecommuting in is driven much more by management's reluctance to be separated from workers than by workers' concerns about lost effectiveness.

by Arl Fan on Dec 19, 2011 1:46 pm • link • report

@Tim Krepp (and @oboe),

What is the difference between urban core dwellers who believe that they don't need to do anything to prevent the exurbs from slow self-destruction and (for example) residents of good school districts who believe that they don't need to do anything to improve the bad schools other people's children go to? This is not a rhetorical question. Both seem like examples of I've Got Mine, to me.

Which, morality entirely aside, is a short-sighted view. The children who went to the good schools will grow up in a society and economy that also includes the children who went to the bad schools. And the residents of the urban core will live in an economy that includes the self-destructing exurbs (if they do self-destruct). There aren't going to be any magical impermeable walls of separation.

by Miriam on Dec 19, 2011 1:54 pm • link • report

The Great Sort is underway, and while we can look on the sidelines in sorrow, I'm not sure what we can, or should, do to prevent the exurbs from slow self destruction.

David is quite right to decry projects as the outer beltway, but it's far, far more important to fight FOR good projects than AGAINST bad ones.

I like where this line of thinking is going but maybe we can take it one step further. Instead of being entirely self-assured and certain about our ability to predict the future, maybe we can pay a little deference to the complexity of the situation and all the unknowable future variables and say, "I have reasons to think that I'm right and you're wrong but I'll allow you to use your tax money to place your bet on your lifestyle and you allow me to use my tax money to place my bet on mine and let's see how things pan out in 20 years."

Now, that kind of attitude is a lot more likely to result in the kind of regional cooperation that's needed to get "good" projects accomplished.

As knowledge work continues to be more important, this sort of urban clustering is going to become more important, not less. Which is also why telecommuting is going to fail as a solution to our congestion problems.

Any sort of regional strategy that is based on pronouncements such as "telecommuting is definitely going to fail...or telecommuting is going to revolutionize the world in 5 years", is surely the wrong strategy. The right strategy is the one that says "we don't really know how successful telecommuting will be 20 years from now but we have a flexible strategy that will be reasonably successful in any scenario."

Btw, there are plenty of examples of knowledge clusters that exist in auto-oriented sprawling places like Silicon Valley, Hollywood, I270 tech corridor, and Boston's Rt. 128 tech corridor.

by Falls Church on Dec 19, 2011 1:54 pm • link • report

What is the difference between urban core dwellers who believe that they don't need to do anything to prevent the exurbs from slow self-destruction and (for example) residents of good school districts who believe that they don't need to do anything to improve the bad schools other people's children go to?

There's a very very big difference. The exurbanites don't want any help from the urban core dwellers to prevent their "self-destruction" (obviously, exurbanites don't believe their choices will lead to self-destruction and in anything are appalled by the urban lifestyle). On the other hand, the people in bad schools would very much like help in improving their schools.

I know it's hard to recognize when one is being self-assured and self-righteous but trying to "save" the exurbanites from self-destruction is no different than evangelicals trying to "save" atheists.

by Falls Church on Dec 19, 2011 2:04 pm • link • report

@Miriam:

What is the difference between urban core dwellers who believe that they don't need to do anything to prevent the exurbs from slow self-destruction and (for example) residents of good school districts who believe that they don't need to do anything to improve the bad schools other people's children go to? This is not a rhetorical question. Both seem like examples of I've Got Mine, to me.

Now hold on a second. I've said repeatedly that I hope the suburbs manage to successfully reconfigure themselves rather than continue on the unsustainable path they're currently on. It's incomprehensible to me how anyone who's lived in this area for more than a decade can compare where we're at now in terms of congestion and suburban quality of life, look at the projected growth in population, and think "I suppose another Beltway is the answer." The experts who do urban planning in places like Tyson's, Rockville, and Silver Spring are trying desperately to convince locals to take effective steps rather than doubling-down on past mistakes with varying degrees of success. Short of going all ELF on the bulldozers, what exactly would you like me to do about it?

Tutt-tutt more vigorously?

by oboe on Dec 19, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report

@oboe -- vigorous tut-tutting would be fine, thank you. The important thing is that it's on your To-Deplore list somewhere (it doesn't even have to be very high up on the list), instead of on your To-Be-Indifferent-About or To-Actually-Cheer-On lists.

by Miriam on Dec 19, 2011 2:23 pm • link • report

@Falls Church

"I know some will argue that the cost of building/maintaining the car-oriented environment is greater than the tax revenue it can generate. That is, the car-oriented environment can only exist if subsidized by the walkable/transit environments. If that's the case, show me the numbers and I'll agree that car-oriented is not economically feasible."

If you'd like to read studies that show auto-oriented development does not pay its bills, read this:
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/14/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-2.html

Here's another relevant article: http://newurbannetwork.com/article/best-bet-tax-revenue-mixed-use-downtown-development-13144

by Phil LaCombe on Dec 19, 2011 2:23 pm • link • report

Btw, there are plenty of examples of knowledge clusters that exist in auto-oriented sprawling places like Silicon Valley...

Silicon Valley's a great example. No dense urban node near the job center, and telecommuting is not feasible because you need your knowledge workers physically present to one another to maximize productivity.

For start-ups, the location decision can be critical, particularly because of the area’s notorious traffic jams. Lately the calculations about traffic, talent and real estate have become trickier because the Valley’s economy is surging again, driving up rents and salaries and clogging roads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/technology/20cluster.html?pagewanted=all

Feh! These guys are supposed to be so smart; how come they've never heard of telecommuting!

More here:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/12/silicon-valleys-urban-planning-dilemma/731/

by oboe on Dec 19, 2011 2:25 pm • link • report

LaCombe's links:

“Downtowns achieve a higher rate of return than an acre of suburban development could ever do,” Minicozzi says.

Minicozzi argues that a municipality should look at tax revenue per acre just as a farmer looks at income per acre

I don't agree with that metric. I would say the better metric is revenue per tax dollar spent. That's the metric that will tell us whether investments such as the Outer Beltway and auto-oriented infrastructure development in general is economically sustainable.

The reason that revenue per acre isn't good is that auto-oriented development allows you to spread the development over many more acres cheaply (because, among other reasons, land is cheaper out in the boonies). So, you have less revenue per acre but many more acres of development.

by Falls Church on Dec 19, 2011 2:36 pm • link • report

@Miriam:

[Cranking the lever back from "Grimly Resigned" to "Deplore"]

by oboe on Dec 19, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report

Silicon Valley's a great example. No dense urban node near the job center, and telecommuting is not feasible because you need your knowledge workers physically present to one another to maximize productivity.

I was pointing to Silicon Valley as an example of how knowledge clusters often exist in auto-oriented places. I had thought you were pointing to clustering as a trend that does not favor auto-oriented environments.

I fully agree that clustering is necessary (and hence telecommuting not possible) for creative/innovative industries like entertainment or tech startups. That said, a lot of knowledge work is not creative/innovative. Your average techie is more likely to be Dilbert doing systems integration for Verizon than creating the next Facebook/Google.

by Falls Church on Dec 19, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report

@Miriam, quite so, and to answer your question, while all of us want good schools, we can't all agree on what composes our ideal community. Folks that choose to live in more distant suburbs don't seem to want the kind of dense, pedestrian and transit centered type of development I want to live in.

Kind of where Falls Church is going. While I think what's going on "out there" is madness, my main concern is that their boondoggles don't suck up funds from my boondoggles. Preaching the gospel of urbanism to residents of Tysons won't gain converts and will just build ill will. Better to focus on my community and wish folks outside the Beltway best of luck with theirs.

We're all placing bets by buying expensive houses and investing in our communities. I'd be less than human if I didn't gloat when my horse places. Point taken, though.

by Tim Krepp on Dec 19, 2011 2:46 pm • link • report

So, you have less revenue per acre but many more acres of development.

And many more individuals with lost opportunities for folding into their daily lives the least amount or basic level of physical activity needed to preserve health/deter preventable chronic disease, which costs tax payers and private businesses who pay for health coverage many many billions of dollars.

There are studies showing a dose effect type result with hours a day spent driving and risk for developing type II diabetes.

By omitting the externalities (of which the above is only one example) in the metric of "revenue" to tax dollars spent on roads a very important cost- a real cost in real dollars is missed, even if you don't care about the human cost in suffering. Type II diabetes is the #1 cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure, CVD and a complication to reducing from overweight. And yet 95% of incidence is 100% preventable.

Our built environment, which includes land use and transportation policy, is a major contributor to how we live everyday and whether or not we can make the best healthiest choices for ourselves or if we are forced into an unhealthy lifestyle (driving everywhere all the time) b/c its the overriding norm for which we as individuals would need Herculean effort to overcome by ourselves, i.e. ride a bike when there is no bike infrastructure.

by Tina on Dec 19, 2011 2:52 pm • link • report

I still haven't gotten over all those Virginia proponents of the ICC. If they're anywhere near as outspoken as those DC and Maryland opponents to the "Outer Beltway," David might be on to something.

by selxic on Dec 19, 2011 2:58 pm • link • report

"The experts who do urban planning in places like Tyson's, Rockville, and Silver Spring are trying desperately to convince locals to take effective steps rather than doubling-down on past mistakes with varying degrees of success. "

I cant speak for MoCo politics, but there isnt really much desperation around the Tysons project. Its happening, the bd was overwhelminginly reelected, and AFAICT the local Repubs support it too. There are debates about specific manifestations of smart growth, usually of the hyper local variety. But there is no doubt that FFX county is choosing a middle path - building tysons, funding the silver line, encouraging TOD, but also supporting HOT lanes and some other road improvements.

Loudoun is less interested in smart growth - but even they have zoned for it around the new silver line stops. But they have lots of employment within the county - I cant see they them ending up in a death spiral because of rising gas prices or carbon taxes, or congestion. They can lose a fair amount of their competitive edge and still remain quite viable.

The only counties that maybe have viability issues are PG, PWC and Stafford. We talk alot about PG here, but almost never about PWC or Stafford. It would be interesting to see what their real situation is - I think both have recovered some of their housing bubble declines, both look to benefit from Ft Belvoir, both are looking to radial highway improvements (esp the i95 hot lanes) and to VRE to help them out, and both have the advantage (for now) of vacant land in a region where there is still demand for SFHs and theres not much vacant land any closer.

I could see betting on PWC and Stafford going down. I wouldnt bet all I have on it though.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 19, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report

Your average techie is more likely to be Dilbert doing systems integration for Verizon than creating the next Facebook/Google

Ah, a reminiscence of the lads toiling in the suburbs in the archetypal office park in "Office Space"!

by Tina on Dec 19, 2011 3:03 pm • link • report

"someone going from Baltimore to Richmond, is going to go down I95, then west on the ICC, then across to the tricounty parkway?"
-----

???

Did you read my post?

I also mentioned the oft-discussed Outer Bypass - usually defined as a route along or near the existing I-97- Route 301 in Maryland and/or along or near the western route - Route 15 or 17 in Virginia. If ann express highway existed either along those routes, long distance traffic - including Baltimore-Richmond could use them instead of clogging our local highways like they do now.

I travel to Richmond occasionally. ANYTHING is better than what exists now. Have you ever been in the stretch of I-95 between Springfield and Richmond? It's even bad on weekends.

Every other major US city, including Richmond and Baltimore, has a bypass highway. Why don't we?

Never mind - I already know the answer. And it's got nothing to do with money.

by ceefer66 on Dec 19, 2011 3:17 pm • link • report

@ AWalkerInTheCity - "Loudoun is less interested in smart growth - but even they have zoned for it around the new silver line stops."

Loudoun is interested in anything that keeps urbanization closer to Fairfax - Frederick does the same thing, as does MoCo - the farce is that with each jurisdiction doing that, there is always a gap between the urbanization area and the supposedly "rural" area. It just rolls to the next area. And the sprawl continues.

Also, by approving more dense development, they get more tax revenue from smaller footprint than otherwise. Why do you think Fairfax is all gung ho on shoveling more people into Tysons? The landowners get a giant payday coming, they force more devleopment in Tysons while not investing in more infrastructure (metro will only handle 20% of the current planned increase in traffic - meaning 80% will fall on the currently failing roads), and get higher tax revenue rather than allowing it to spread out to DC, Arlington, MoCo, or Loudoun.

by Steven on Dec 19, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report

@ceefer66

Do you have any information on what percent of the beltway traffic is through traffic vs going someplace in the DC metro area? Because I bet that percentage is small and is time-shifting travel so they're not traveling at rush hour.

Any far-out bypass is destined to fail as a bypass for through traffic because it will be further and more time-consuming than going straight through unless the through-route is horribly congested at all times. Right now anybody with a brain knows enough to just travel at a time when you won't hit congestion.

by MLD on Dec 19, 2011 3:35 pm • link • report

I thought I-81 was the bypass. I know I'd prefer it, if I were a trucker.

by Crickey7 on Dec 19, 2011 3:43 pm • link • report

@ceefer
Im sorry, i thought you were suggesting that long distance by pass traffic was a benefit of the western bypass - IE the outer beltway that i thought was the subject of this Alperts piece.

@steve yes, of course both counties want tax revenues. They have schools to fund, and a "collapse" to avert. as for road spending in FFX, of course FFX is and will continue to spend on roads - plus eventually we are likely to get more transit improvement in addition to the silver line - but in any case, in the absence of the new Tysons, much development would have ended up sprawling in other parts of the county and adjacent areas, resulting in that much more impact on our roads.

Im not sure what you mean about Loudouns strategy - their locations for TOD are the only ones in the county where it could make sense - the two transit stops (I think they are trying smart growth "lite" nr Dulles town center) The rest of eastern loudoun is zoned suburban, not rural. The rural area is west of rte 15 (or will be, once the remaining rural areas east of 15 are built out)

by AWalkerInThecity on Dec 19, 2011 4:15 pm • link • report

"Do you have any information on what percent of the beltway traffic is through traffic vs going someplace in the DC metro area? Because I bet that percentage is small and is time-shifting travel so they're not traveling at rush hour."

I honestly don't numbers.

However, consider the fact that the I-95 corridor is the main East Coast travel route and arguably one of the busiest, if not the busiest, in the US.

Also, I've been caught in gridlock (nights and weekends, no less) on the stretches of I-95 between DC and Richmond and DC and Baltimore - and seen enough vehicles with out-of-state tags - to know that we get LOTS of out of state traffic passing through.

They might not be there in great numbers during rush hour but they are there. Not to mention LOCAL traffic that must come from further out areas to use I-95 simply because there is no other through route. It's ridiculous than one must travel all the way from Manassas or Gainesville to I-95 to head north or south.

Or that I-95 through Prince william, Fairfax, Alexandria and Prince Gorges is the only direct way one can get from New Jersey to North Carolina.

One cannot help but wonder how different things might be if we had an outer bypass.

Like Richmond.

by ceefer66 on Dec 19, 2011 5:00 pm • link • report

What is the difference between urban core dwellers who believe that they don't need to do anything to prevent the exurbs from slow self-destruction and (for example) residents of good school districts who believe that they don't need to do anything to improve the bad schools other people's children go to?

Everyone, no matter who they are, should have access to good schools. On the other hand, there is no human right or social justice justification for subsidizing/supporting a dying/socially-destructive planning/zoning regime.

by JustMe on Dec 19, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report

@ceefer66 -- I'm sure you won't find this answer acceptable, but we have 2 bypasses already, I-95 and I-495. (With 395, 295 and 66 as the only interstate routes into DC).

You can make an argument for an outer bypass, as I-95 now gets congested well before it becomes the Beltway, but let's not say that this is the only city on the I-95 corridor without a bypass highway, when it's in fact one of the only ones without an interstate that cuts straight through.

by Jacques on Dec 19, 2011 5:22 pm • link • report

anybody with a brain knows enough to just travel at a time when you won't hit congestion.

When, praytell, is that? When you're making a 4-hour trip, even on the weekends, there's no way to time the trip to avoid congestion. I consistently run into traffic congestion, even on weekends, somewhere between DC and NYC. Plus, as everyone knows, parts of the Beltway is effectively undriveable during rush hour.

by JustMe on Dec 19, 2011 5:25 pm • link • report

@cassie: As a NYC and DC resident, DC has worse traffic than NYC.

The only way to fundamentally alter travel patterns is to work with zoning so as to reduce the need for circumferential travel, and if there needs to be any, it should be in dense corridors such as Bethesda to Silver Spring with multiple travel modes (*cough*Purple Line*cough*). We can do this by preventing the continued expansion of sprawl further along 270 and 95 in Montgomery and Prince George's as well as along 95, 66, and the Toll Road in NoVA. In doing so, infill development becomes necessary.

Further, DC should be taking an active lead in accelerating residential development along specific corridors (eg Georgia, H NE, U) higher-density TOD, setback construction à la 7th and H, and further infill as well as spearheading faster streetcar construction. The result should be a Chicago style oversupply, keeping housing prices low to attract urbanites who can't live in DC due to high housing costs. These citizens make up a significant proportion of suburban and exurban residents. All of these will help reduce the need for further highway construction because, as we can see, highway expansion DOES NOT WORK.

by Phil on Dec 19, 2011 5:37 pm • link • report

@Crickey7: they already do. I-81's truck traffic percentages are among the highest on the East Coast.

ceefer: your comments support an eastern bypass much more than they support a western bypass. If we're going to be hell-bent on building a bypass, let's build it where it'll actually get some use. And it's not in Loudoun County.

by Froggie on Dec 19, 2011 5:41 pm • link • report

@Jacques, and since there is essentially no highway through DC, the bypass is the primary highway. The bypass needs a bypass.

by selxic on Dec 19, 2011 5:54 pm • link • report

The region could greatly benefit from increased investment in transit. But this benefit will only convey in densely development, business-residential hub nodes; it does little for the more distant suburbs. Until density is embraced in the outlaying areas, transit there is a virtual non-starter.

It is an unfortunate fact that no road bridge spans the Potomac river between the American Legion Bridge and Route 15 at Point of Rocks. This reason alone is why the idea of a Western Bypass remains alive. As the Dulles and I-270 corridors develop further, pressure for a new river crossing will only increase.

The state of Maryland in a pickle because it's believed that any new bridge will induce businesses to scoot across the river to Virginia. At the same time, the state wants to drive up traffic at BWI, its main transportation hub. But Dulles Airport is the region's international link, and, as such, a crucial factor in business location. So despite what Maryland does or does not do, some businesses might shift operations anyway. An example is Bechtel, the nation's largest construction company (and builder of the Silver Line), which recently decided to uproot offices from Frederick and move to Northern Virginia.

The Western Bypass concept is a reasonable solution to improve the region's traffic flows. Will it induce further sprawl? Some, perhaps. But take note, sprawl has already extended vastly beyond where any bypass route would lay. With population projections showing another million residents by 2040, if not earlier, the region is in dire need of both more roads and more transit. What is desperately needed right now, however, is more balance between road building and transit development. On the plus side, the seemingly never ending progression of exurban sprawl is, well, ending. But that doesn't mean a western bypass is not needed; unfortunately, it is.

It behooves those who support transit to embrace some road development. It shouldn't be an either or, but, regrettably, it is. Transit should be pushed in areas where it will have an immediate impact. In the meantime, naysaying road proposals in areas that will never see transit may only be antagonizing those who have (or will have) the power to say "yea" or "nay" to transit projects.

by Sage on Dec 19, 2011 6:14 pm • link • report

"It is an unfortunate fact that no road bridge spans the Potomac river between the American Legion Bridge and Route 15 at Point of Rocks. This reason alone is why the idea of a Western Bypass remains alive. As the Dulles and I-270 corridors develop further, pressure for a new river crossing will only increase."

Ideally, there would be a connection to Maryland, but as others have mentioned there is a lack of connectivity between the southern and northern portions of northern Virginia.

by selxic on Dec 19, 2011 6:35 pm • link • report

@selxic "... but as others have mentioned there is a lack of connectivity between the southern and northern portions of northern Virginia."

Well, let's see. There's (1) the Fairfax County Parkway; (2) Route 28, which is now an expressway between I-66 and Route 7, with the exception of two traffic lights; (3) Route 234, the major highway and Manassas bypass; (4) State Road 123, also known a Ox Road; (5) Prince William's Route 3000; and, of course, (6) the Beltway.

To be sure, as other posters have mentioned, there is some degree of lack of connectivity. Perhaps it should be phrased as the lack of "free flowing" lack of connectivity. For example, SR 123 is a wonderful drive up from the Woodbridge area until it reaches traffic congested Fairfax City. The same goes for Route 28 heading south from Route 7; all is good until just past I-66.

The traffic pattern that is causing the biggest headache is with commuters motoring up I-95 from Lake Ridge, Woodbridge, and Stafford and Spotsylvania counties, then swinging over to the Beltway heading north to Tysons and beyond. Because of this pattern, we're getting the Beltway HOT lanes and the proposed I-95 HOT lanes. A lot of these commuters might shift to SR 123 were it not for the Fairfax City logjam. Of course, they can avoid that by bouncing over to the Fairfax County Pkwy., then hitting I-66. But, in the end it's a wash, and the result is, one way or the other, one hellacious commute.

It's now readily clear that the favored locale for business in Northern Virginia is the Tyson's-Dulles corridor. Arlington and Alexandria are perhaps as attractive, if not more so, but size-wise, they're limited in how much can be accommodated. Tyson's and Dulles, on the other hand, have room to grow.

In conceptual planning maps from the 1980s and 1990s, Route 28 is shown as an option for a Western Bypass. That seems to be the logical solution, along with the proposed Tri-County Parkway. It's only logical, too, that someday Route 28 would be extended across the Potomac.

by Sage on Dec 19, 2011 7:48 pm • link • report

Maryland’s section of the Outer Beltway is already coming together with the completion of the ICC and planning efforts for the Eastern Bypass/Walforf Bypass. The missing segment over the Potomac River, AKA the “Techway” is unlikely to happen as Maryland and Virginia continue to drift apart in strategy. In addition the future extension of the Virginia HOT lanes into Maryland will allow for quick travel times for commuters to all the major airports in the area. The HOT lane concept allows for the connection of the disconnected segments of the Outer Beltway. We will see great economic benefits with 10,000 jobs directly created by the ICC and 150,000 others indirectly supported by the ICC. The ICC will also result in the long-envisioned Biotech Triangle in Montgomery County, transforming the area into an international research center anchored by premier federal agencies. In addition the completion of the ICC will allow for the development of Konterra, a new corridor city the size of Tysons Corner. The Eastern Bypass will result in additional economic development on the eastern side of the Metro area and direct commerce towards the Port of Baltimore and BWI Airport, which are already seeing record volume. The future with the new Outer Beltway is very exciting and we will see the economic benefits well into the future.

by Cyrus on Dec 19, 2011 8:05 pm • link • report

"Induced demand" is a consequence of local government not the road itself. So pressure to develop the agricultural preserve would rest solely on the Montgomery County council. Also traffic gets worse because the job center is DC not the suburbs. It simply amazes me that the surrounding counties still believe and act contrary to that fact. Yes Tyson's is great and has a lot of jobs, but it is a distant second to DC. Also no one lives there so traffic will always be an issue, even with efforts by Fairfax county to transform it. That will only entice new residents, not existing ones. The only true way to alleviate traffic is to encourage to live near mass transit and cut miles driven to work. Which essentially means increase the population growth in DC proper and the nearby towns, TOD, etc. Ultimately people want to live further away to have a better life for their families. A sense of community. Good schools. Be around like minded individuals. Cheaper housing. The more you can have people search for that life inside the beltway, the better the region will be congestion wise.

by Sivad on Dec 19, 2011 8:27 pm • link • report

@Cyrus

There's one thing you left out in your prediction of the future with an Outer Beltway: the environmental degradation and rape of the land as we continue to build unsustainable development patterns. Have we seriously learned nothing from the past 60 years+?

by Ray on Dec 19, 2011 8:29 pm • link • report

Chicagoland has a LOT more miles of rail, and considerably more miles of highways than the DC/Baltimore area. DC/Balt's growth puts it on a trajectory to be the size of Chicago, yet we lack the infrastructure of that megopolis. We need BOTH new highways and a greatly expanded heavy metro/light transit/commuter bus/rail network...on the scale of the Windy City. The problem is, particularly in VA, the DC suburbs have always been the ugly stepsister with regards to infrastructure money (road or mass transit).

Richmond Metro is a perfect examples of this imbalance - completely overbuilt highway system with nary a traffic jam to be seen (and also a counterbalance to the partially true yet perhaps overused "induced demand" argument...and its thriving, walkable city a counter to the idea that mass transit is required for lively urbanity (even if it is desired)). The result around the DMV has been to squabble and bicker over the transportation $craps, throwing fellow metro citizens under the proverbial bus (pun noted) because they commute differently.

I think it's kind of a false assumption that new circumferential roads are incompatible with continued TOD, particularly a new road between Reston and Rockville - two fairly well-planned areas, each "sprawled" as much as possible already. The only thing a circumferential road between these two points will induce is adequate infrastructure for the URBAN growth each area desires (at the mass transit lines). Just as the Balston/Rosslyn corridor thrives due to the conjunction of metro AND the highways around it (I-66/50/GW Parkway/110, etc), so can Reston and Rockville work the same way.

by stevek_fairfax on Dec 20, 2011 12:06 am • link • report

...a lot of thoughts in that post, LOL. Maybe I should split them up next time.

by stevek_fairfax on Dec 20, 2011 12:11 am • link • report

Back to the ICC, as much as I love it for the commutes I make I do have to admit that 6 very nice 500 million projects could have been built with that money. One of which could have been a 500 million overhall of the existing roads between 29 and 370. The CCT, the Purple Line, Perhaps another 500 million of decent road improvements. A lot of needs could have been met.

At least its a toll road and the state will get some money back.

by Matt R on Dec 20, 2011 7:20 am • link • report

"The result should be a Chicago style oversupply, keeping housing prices low to attract urbanites who can't live in DC due to high housing costs. These citizens make up a significant proportion of suburban and exurban residents."

Thats the 64,000 question. Are there lots of folks living in a SFH in the burbs doing so because TOD is too pricey due to supply constraints, or is almost everyone in a SFH in the burbs someone with an overwhelming preference for a SFH? The evidence is debated.

WRT Bechtel - It relocated in TYSON's. If the western bypass were in place, might it have gone to Dulles instead? The phrase "Dulles Corridor" to refer to everything from Tysons to Ashburn, tends to obscure what I think is a serious rivalry between Tysons and the Loudoun county office markets. Which has significant consequences for the shape of the region.

Suppose the choice were a western bypass/outbeltway, vs extending the I495 HOT lanes over the Legion bridge and into Maryland? Both would be ways to address vehicle capacity across the river, but with very different consequences for development and the shape of the region.

As for extending 28 to Rockville, I thought that was already off the table, due to the intensity of existing residential development in its path on both sides of the river. I thought Western Bypass basically mean tricounty parkway extended to upper MoCo, at this point.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 8:55 am • link • report

"It behooves those who support transit to embrace some road development. It shouldn't be an either or, but, regrettably, it is. Transit should be pushed in areas where it will have an immediate impact. In the meantime, naysaying road proposals in areas that will never see transit may only be antagonizing those who have (or will have) the power to say "yea" or "nay" to transit projects"

I tend to be sympathetic to this POV, the need for a big tent. But I dont see any groundswell of support for the Western bypass/outerbeltway. AFAICT public opinion in Loudoun county mainly wants road improvements (now underway) on Route 7, to ease the radial commute from Leesburg to Ashburn. No great support for the Outer Beltway there. MoCo, also on the path of the outerbeltway, seems mostly opposed. Who does that leave? Prince William? Is there even strong support for it there? Unlike Rte 7 improvements, or I66 improvements, or the I95 HOT Lanes, all of which have significant constituencies - I don't see any places that overwhelmingly support the Outer beltway - just developers (not the devils incarnate in my book, but disappointing them occasionally is inevitable) and a free newspaper.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 9:00 am • link • report

"Induced demand" is a consequence of local government not the road itself. So pressure to develop the agricultural preserve would rest solely on the Montgomery County council. Also traffic gets worse because the job center is DC not the suburbs.

At the risk of talking out of my ass, there seems to be the possibility of a kind of "induced political demand" as well. As we subsidize sprawling (IMO, toxic) development patterns, we make housing of that type less expensive and therefore more attractive. That means more people live in those sorts of unsustainable communities. That means going forward, as the years pass, we misallocate our resources there, and population grows in the sprawl-zone, such developments trend towards collapsing under their own inefficiencies.

So we're left with an artificially high number of voters suffering from short-sighted growth policy--a policy which has been heavily subsidized to the detriment of neighborhoods which are sustainable. Which means a lot of desperate people locked into a rapidly degenerating quality of life, for whom there really aren't any solutions in the short- to medium-term, voting to "double-down" on the poor decisions that got them there.

So heavily subsidized new highways not only induce demand in the sense of "traffic" but of a dysfunctional politics as well.

Anyway, this hypothesis could be the result of the three cups of coffee I've had this morning, in which case, moderators, please delete.

by oboe on Dec 20, 2011 9:27 am • link • report

Steven's comment is telling:

"Have you seen any of the projections for the growth anticipated for DC in the next 40 years? Where do you think all these people will go - in high rises in downtown Bethesda?"

More to the point -- suppose they do end up in high-rises in Bethesda (or White Flint, or even Rockville)? Not only are the roads choked, so is the Metro. If they do move into these high-rises, we need to drastically improve train capacity. If that could be done, you'd have something. We can talk about building a rail link to Tyson's, which sounds great, but then you have to find not only funding to build it, but to maintain and operate all those trains.

I'm all for that, but wonder wehre that money is giong to come from.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Dec 20, 2011 9:52 am • link • report

@AWalkerIntheCity
Thats the 64,000 question. Are there lots of folks living in a SFH in the burbs doing so because TOD is too pricey due to supply constraints, or is almost everyone in a SFH in the burbs someone with an overwhelming preference for a SFH? The evidence is debated.

Prices for all kinds of housing in desirable walkable areas in the city are higher than auto-oriented SFH in the way-out burbs. The "desirable" part refers to things like crime levels, school quality, etc. So places in the city that have the high quality of life similar to the suburbs have higher prices - because they are more in demand.

There is a lack of supply of family housing in quality walkable areas in the city.

by MLD on Dec 20, 2011 9:53 am • link • report

Desires have changed dramatically since the Outer Beltway was first proposed. Today, many people want to be able to live closer to their workplaces and near transit. Instead of building the Outer Beltway, smart investments can create more living and transportation options, save commuters money and make our entire transportation system work better.

I'm not sure that this line of reasoning is a good argument against an outer Beltway. People who live outside the Beltway and commute towards the inner core of DC most likely do so because they're married with kids and/or they choose to live in a SFH that is more affordable for them. Expanding the transit options for commuting towards the core of DC is a reasonable goal but only if commuters choose to use said transit instead of driving.

Or is the goal of denying an outer Beltway to convince families to move back towards the core of DC?

by Fitz on Dec 20, 2011 9:58 am • link • report

Are there lots of folks living in a SFH in the burbs doing so because TOD is too pricey due to supply constraints, or is almost everyone in a SFH in the burbs someone with an overwhelming preference for a SFH? The evidence is debated.

(1) Its not an either/or proposition. The choice is not highrise apt vs SFH. Thats a fallacy.

dense development does not mean only high rise apts. Done right neighborhoods of SFHs near transit with connected street grids and walking and biking infrastructure and zoning to allow mixed use in the neighborhood can and does fulfill TOD and the desire of those who would otherwise live in a beautiful spacious SFH in Woodely Park if they only had 1.5 million for a house

and what MLD said - .

by Tina on Dec 20, 2011 10:15 am • link • report

Or is the goal of denying an outer Beltway to convince families to move back towards the core of DC?

The reason for opposing the massive amount of cash we'd spend (i.e. "denying") an outer Beltway is that it would provide dubious benefit in the short-run, and would make things harder to "fix" in the medium- to long-run.

Of course, it's probably easier to dismiss such arguments if you ignore them, and cast opponents in the role of "Big Meany Who Wants To Force Your Children To Live In a Tenement".

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

Or is the goal of denying an outer Beltway to convince families to move back towards the core of DC?

It's to stop incentiving development far outside the core of DC for those who wish to commute to the core of DC, because that just makes things worse.

The ICC "works" because it creates a much-needed connection from the BWI and the Baltimore ports to Montgomery county without interfering with DC-centric traffic while being too expensive to be used as a commuter route.

The goal of stopping an outer Beltway is to ensure that the DC core does not incur the public costs of more sprawl on the outer edges having a detrimental impact on the core and the metro area.

by JustMe on Dec 20, 2011 10:19 am • link • report

When people speak of "induced demand" for a new road it is bad thing, that the traffic got a lot worse faster than they expected. OTOH, when they speak of "induced demand" for a new public project, such as the silver line, it is taken as proof of its success.

To the naysayers here: have any of you been driving on rt 7 at 6:30 AM on a workday lately? To think that many people are up that early to clog all the 6 lane-wide roads is awe-inspiring. It is obvious that more roads are needed; it pains me to point out as a DC dweller that the Dulles-Tysons corridor will surpass DC as the principle center of employment, if it has not already. In the end, the large number of registered Virginia voters already living out there will trump the few DC residents that oppose it.

by goldfish on Dec 20, 2011 10:19 am • link • report

@Fitz

I'm not sure that this line of reasoning is a good argument against an outer Beltway. People who live outside the Beltway and commute towards the inner core of DC most likely do so because they're married with kids and/or they choose to live in a SFH that is more affordable for them. Expanding the transit options for commuting towards the core of DC is a reasonable goal but only if commuters choose to use said transit instead of driving.

This is a big part of the problem. People make choices based on their own cost/benefit analysis, but that analysis doesn't take into account the costs borne by the region. Sprawl is the perfect example of those kinds of externalities.

So, let's not pretend that those family-based decisions happen in a vacuum.

by Alex B. on Dec 20, 2011 10:22 am • link • report

@AWalker,

Thats the 64,000 question. Are there lots of folks living in a SFH in the burbs doing so because TOD is too pricey due to supply constraints, or is almost everyone in a SFH in the burbs someone with an overwhelming preference for a SFH? The evidence is debated.

I'd argue that that both of those aspects drive (pun intended) families and individuals to live outside the Beltway. Survey's conducted for the National Assoc of Realtors, which I've linked below, show that the desire for detached SFH's is the overwhelming favorite. While it also showed that the desire for Smarth Growth communities is higher, it also assumed that "the qaulity of the schools, crime rates, and cost of house are exactly the same in the two communities." To me that shows the cost of a detached SFH is a huge factor for choosing to live outside the Beltway.

http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/connect/a0806b00465fb7babfd0bfce195c5fb4/smart_growth_comm_survey_results_2011.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

by Fitz on Dec 20, 2011 10:27 am • link • report

"Prices for all kinds of housing in desirable walkable areas in the city are higher than auto-oriented SFH in the way-out burbs. "

yes, but thats with supply constrained. If we add supply, do we exhaust the numbers with high preferences for walkable fairly quickly, or is there enough demand that it will keep prices up until a very large portion of the housing stock is walkable? The anti-urbanists prefer to argue from existing quantity demanded, ignoring price, while the urbanists prefer to argue from price, ignoring the potential shape of the demand curve. IMO we just dont know in a revealed preference sense, until we can unconstrain supply. We can use stated preference (surveys and stuff) but those can be attacked on many grounds.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 10:28 am • link • report

In the end, the large number of registered Virginia voters already living out there will trump the few DC residents that oppose it.

If--in the wake of the Euro-zone collapse, and the subsequent global depression--they can afford it. As the philosopher Sir M. Phillip Jagger once wrote, "You can't always get what you want."

by oboe on Dec 20, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

"(1) Its not an either/or proposition. The choice is not highrise apt vs SFH. Thats a fallacy.

dense development does not mean only high rise apts. Done right neighborhoods of SFHs near transit with connected street grids and walking and biking infrastructure and zoning to allow mixed use in the neighborhood can and does fulfill TOD and the desire of those who would otherwise live in a beautiful spacious SFH in Woodely Park if they only had 1.5 million for a house"

I know its not a binary - there are THs and midrise apts, etc - I didnt want to write an essay. But I must disagree on SFHs. The absolute number of SFHs (esp on the size lots many suburbanites prefer) that can be squeezed in within walking distance of transit is so small, that its never going to be an affordable option for most people.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 10:32 am • link • report

"In the end, the large number of registered Virginia voters already living out there will trump the few DC residents that oppose it."

Im a registered VA voter. In fairfax county. The outer beltway will do nothing for radial commuters in Fairfax. It will provide limited benefit to beltway commuters. It will probably strengthen the Dulles area in its competition with Tysons, where the county is making a huge investment (can we PLEASE stop lumping Tysons in with Loudoun in a "Dulles Corridor")

As far as I can tell, my interests as a resident of FFX all lead me to oppose the outer beltway.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 10:35 am • link • report

@JustMe,

It's to stop incentiving development far outside the core of DC for those who wish to commute to the core of DC, because that just makes things worse.

If that's the purpose and goal of the outer Beltway then I would agree with, that would only make things worse.

by Fitz on Dec 20, 2011 10:38 am • link • report

"the qaulity of the schools, crime rates, and cost of house are exactly the same in the two communities." To me that shows the cost of a detached SFH is a huge factor for choosing to live outside the Beltway.

Of course schools and crime can change (crime has gone down in DC and Alex, vastly making densification easier - schools not so much, though there are parts of Arlington where that dynamic has taken hold)

The real key is price. and of course folks looking for affordable SFHs on quarter acre lots near transit are barking up a tree. The question is - what ratio between the price for a SFH in sprawl, and TH in walkable, induces those families to pick the TH? Clearly the current prices for those THs serve as a deterrent to many who might consider it.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 10:39 am • link • report

http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2011/may/19/outer-beltway-vote-stirs-growth-vs-preservation-de-ar-1050328/

Lets make this clear. PWC supports the outer beltway. As do the chambers of commerce in Loudoun and FFX. Loudoun County Govt (and I think FFX) OPPOSE the outer beltway. So even in the suburbs, opinion is split, by geography and economic interest. I am pretty sure that in Arlington and Alex sentiment on this is pretty close to what it is in DC.

Where do people get the idea that this is a matter of consensus in NoVa?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 10:49 am • link • report

The question is - what ratio between the price for a SFH in sprawl, and TH in walkable, induces those families to pick the TH?

One thing left out of the equation: congestion. Twenty or even ten years ago, this was a simple equation of price versus space. Add in the question of school-quality for buyers with children.

But congestion has altered that equation radically and will continue to do so.

Obviously there are people who work in the suburbs, for whom DC proper is irrelevant, but there are a lot of folks who pay a premium to live in proximity to the job centers of Tyson's Corner, etc... And this affects not only home-buyer's decision-making, but increasingly employer's location decisions as well.

As those nodes get more urban-like, and regional population increases, the premium that folks pay to live in proximity to such places will increase. Which means that, if market forces are allowed to decide, increasingly we'll see dense development. The worse congestion gets, the greater the value of proximity. And we have no solution to the congestion problem.

by oboe on Dec 20, 2011 10:59 am • link • report

@oboe

the nearest sprawl frontier (vacant land where relatively affordable new SFHs on 1/4 acre lots can be built)to Tysons is in central loudoun, such as brambleton. Within two years the optimal commute from Brambleton to Tysons will be a drive to parking garage near the Silver line, and then a ride of what, 45 minutes to Tysons. Its unlikely that the roads in Loudoun will get congested enough to make that more than 15 minute or so drive. So its going to be about an hour, maybe a bit more for the walk from the metro to the office. Thats quite doable, esp if someone can telecommute once a week (but even if not). At what price can the market deliver new THs within walking distance of Tysons employment centers? Or even within a short transit ride (say LRT from Falls Church or Vienna)?

When the garages in Loudoun begin to fill up, will the county build more garages, or will they provide additional bus service to the metro stations. Will commuters lower themselves to ride buses for the privilege of the lawn? Many around NoVa already do.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 11:16 am • link • report

@oboe

And we have no solution to the congestion problem.

Actually, I think we do have a solution - it's just one that nobody likes.

Tolling.

And not HOT lanes, but tolling all lanes. Price the tolls to relieve congestion. Presumably, there's a price that everyday commuters won't like but one-time through traffic will be willing to pay. Do this and you've solved the congestion issue.

In the event that you do need more capacity, the tolling is a built-in revenue stream to finance that additional capacity - preferably using higher-capacity modes of transport (i.e. transit).

by Alex B. on Dec 20, 2011 11:24 am • link • report

@Alex B.,
This is a big part of the problem. People make choices based on their own cost/benefit analysis, but that analysis doesn't take into account the costs borne by the region. Sprawl is the perfect example of those kinds of externalities.
I'm not trying to justify sprawl. Planning and zoning is for local and state jurisdictions, not individual families. I'm simply showing why someone who works near the core of DC may choose to live outside of it. Families ultimately choose what they think is in their best interest, as they should.

by Fitz on Dec 20, 2011 11:29 am • link • report

The nearest sprawl frontier (vacant land where relatively affordable new SFHs on 1/4 acre lots can be built)to Tysons is in central loudoun, such as brambleton. Within two years the optimal commute from Brambleton to Tysons will be a drive to parking garage near the Silver line, and then a ride of what, 45 minutes to Tysons.

Are you saying that this is going to be the new normal for housing developments in outer suburbia? Or just that there are outliers?

If I moved to Harper's Ferry and worked on Capitol Hill, I could walk to the train station, catch the 6:56 to Union Station, and be at work before 9am.

by oboe on Dec 20, 2011 11:30 am • link • report

@AWalker,

The real key is price. and of course folks looking for affordable SFHs on quarter acre lots near transit are barking up a tree. The question is - what ratio between the price for a SFH in sprawl, and TH in walkable, induces those families to pick the TH? Clearly the current prices for those THs serve as a deterrent to many who might consider it.

Very true. Plus how do local govt's provide more incentive for developers to build more TH's instead of condos?

by Fitz on Dec 20, 2011 11:42 am • link • report

@Fitz

I'm not trying to justify sprawl. Planning and zoning is for local and state jurisdictions, not individual families. I'm simply showing why someone who works near the core of DC may choose to live outside of it. Families ultimately choose what they think is in their best interest, as they should.

OK, except then the local authorities that control planning and zoning end up making their zoning decisions based on what families ultimately choose. The exclusionary nature of zoning assigns that level of density, essentially, in perpetuity. The next wave of development leapfrogs out further, creating more demand for another beltway and more low-density development. It's a vicious cycle.

It's fine to point out that a family's decision making process should be different than that of a municipality or of a regional decision-making body. Those bodies should have a different rubric for making decisions. That also means that the advocates for outer beltways can't use a family's choice as an argument in favor of building such infrastructure, either - can't have it both ways.

by Alex B. on Dec 20, 2011 11:42 am • link • report

"Are you saying that this is going to be the new normal for housing developments in outer suburbia? Or just that there are outliers?

If I moved to Harper's Ferry and worked on Capitol Hill, I could walk to the train station, catch the 6:56 to Union Station, and be at work before 9am."

Im not sure I understand your question. Lots of folks in Loudoun work in Loudoun. For those people driving is likely to remain an option for the foreseeable future. Others work in the reston Herndon part of fairfax. They can use the silver line, depending on the exact location of their offices. Even with growing congestion on the Toll road, for those who need to drive, driving will likely be feasible. For those who work in Tysons, I think the silver line will set a limit to the length of acceptable road commute, since it will be an alternative.

For folks in the i95 corridor, the alts to an awful SOV commute to the core are VRE/express bus or car/vanpooling to use the HOV lanes. Once the beltway hot lanes are done, that will be the optimal way from those areas to Tysons (carpooling or express bus)

The folks who are mostly stuck are the PWC/Stafford people commuting to the Dulles area. Thats the real constituency for the Outer beltway.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

@AWalkerintheCity
"Prices for all kinds of housing in desirable walkable areas in the city are higher than auto-oriented SFH in the way-out burbs. "
yes, but thats with supply constrained. If we add supply, do we exhaust the numbers with high preferences for walkable fairly quickly, or is there enough demand that it will keep prices up until a very large portion of the housing stock is walkable?

Nobody's arguing that everyone has to live the same way. The argument here is why would we build further out highways and enable more sprawl when clearly there is an undersupply of housing for which our infrastructure costs would be cheaper?

by MLD on Dec 20, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report

"Very true. Plus how do local govt's provide more incentive for developers to build more TH's instead of condos?"

as long as there is major demand for condos/apts, I dont think there is much reason to do that in the areas closest to transit. I was not suggesting that townhouses fight sprawl and condos are useless - I was just trying to keep the analysis simple by not including every possible form of development.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report

My point is that whenever one attempts a critique of the overall growth patterns of the DC Metro area (i.e. regional policy), it's met with the counter-example of the guy who lives in Falls Church a block off of Gallows Road, and has a 15 minute commute to Tyson's Galleria. That's all well and good, but DC doesn't have a reputation as "Commuter Hell on Earth" because such examples represent the norm.

It seems we're in agreement that proximity is going to be the critical factor as urban-like nodes such as Tyson's emerge, and regional congestion gets worse. That's why I was asking for clarification: What is it you're trying to illustrate with your Brambleton example?

by oboe on Dec 20, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report

"Nobody's arguing that everyone has to live the same way. The argument here is why would we build further out highways and enable more sprawl when clearly there is an undersupply of housing for which our infrastructure costs would be cheaper?"

You have me pegged wrong. Im all for creating more walkable TOD. There is, however a real question as to the extent of that undersupply. To some degree the market is already slowly addressing that. To seem degree we can increase supply with things that are good to do anyway (improving inner city schools and public safety, making cheap but high bang for the buck investments in improving ped/bike experiences, lessening zoning barriers to TOD) If we are to focus MAJOR investments on new rail lines, in order to increase the number of areas that can provide TOD, and IF we are to avoid otherwise positive cost benefit highway projects on the belief that by doing so we can reshape the metropolitan form, than HOW MANY folks want to move to walkable TOD (within achievable relative prices) matters.

The key phrase is "enable more sprawl" That implicitly assumes that changing our investment strategy will change locational decisions, and (I think) that it will do so in ways that do not lead to widespread dissatisfication. That MAY be the case - it depends on the shape of the demand curves. I think its worth making the issue explicit and addressing it, rather than burying it in implicit assumptions.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report

@Alex B:

OK, except then the local authorities that control planning and zoning end up making their zoning decisions based on what families ultimately choose. The exclusionary nature of zoning assigns that level of density, essentially, in perpetuity. The next wave of development leapfrogs out further, creating more demand for another beltway and more low-density development. It's a vicious cycle.

This is what I was trying to get at with my previous post on "induced political demand". Road-building and segregated shopping malls creates a political culture that fosters more reflexive road-building, and segregated shopping malls. And as the quality of life inevitably deteriorates, the only solution is to move outward and demand more such policies.

by oboe on Dec 20, 2011 12:18 pm • link • report

"That's all well and good, but DC doesn't have a reputation as "Commuter Hell on Earth" because such examples represent the norm. "

there are a few reasons for that. 1. There are areas with much less favorble population employment ratios than Loudoun/northern Fairfax. The worst I suppose is the area EAST and south east of DC - PG, Charles County, Calvert, southern Anne Arundel. Within NoVa the worst are south along the I95 corridor (Ft belvoir helps, but I think not that much). The high employment suburbs Loudoun, northern FFX, MoCo are really a fundamentally different dynamic.

also there are folks who change jobs, and folks with two incomes who commute to widely seperated areas. At some point one response to congestion is to move more quickly in response to a job change - or to forego certain job opportunities (that means a more fractionated labor market, which is a danger to the competitiveness of given employment centers).

Then of course there are folks who value the convenience of the auto over the time/ease savings of transit. That would be the many folks who commute by car to the core although they have a transit option.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 20, 2011 12:21 pm • link • report

The folks who are mostly stuck are the PWC/Stafford people commuting to the Dulles area. Thats the real constituency for the Outer beltway.

Yes, and why would we encouraging people to sign up to commute for what is during clear traffic an hour's drive? When the average commute time in the metro area is 30 minutes? Is all the available land from DC to Stafford filled up?

Face the facts: we overbuilt the Interstate system from the beginning (construction was cheap and the land was empty) and were pampered with no traffic for decades. Currently we don't even pay to keep up the roads we've got, much less build any new capacity.

Fuel taxes per vehicle mile are LESS (inflation-adjusted) than they were when we were building the interstate system. Raise gas taxes at the federal and state levels so that it actually covers maintaining our roads (fed, state and local roads) and some new construction - this will require gas taxes to be 3X what they are now. Once it costs that much, then we'll see how many people are willing to sign up for 100+ miles of driving every day.

by MLD on Dec 20, 2011 12:27 pm • link • report

@AWalker,

as long as there is major demand for condos/apts, I dont think there is much reason to do that in the areas closest to transit. I was not suggesting that townhouses fight sprawl and condos are useless - I was just trying to keep the analysis simple by not including every possible form of development.

Ok, I thought you meant that TH's near transit are suitable alternatives to detached-SFH's in sprawl. I guess what I was trying to say is that I agree with that idea but I don't know if in the DC region that the SFH-in-spral to TH-near-transit price ratio could ever decrease enough because the supply of TH's would be hard to meet. Does that make sense?

by Fitz on Dec 20, 2011 12:36 pm • link • report

Ditto MLD

by Tina on Dec 20, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report

@AWalkerInTheCity:

The high employment suburbs Loudoun, northern FFX, MoCo are really a fundamentally different dynamic.

I don't have enough information to counter this with a ton of data, but I work with one fellow who commutes from just west of Warrenton to Tysons. His commute is often 70 minutes door-to-door. He's not a happy camper. So it's not just east of the city.

by oboe on Dec 20, 2011 12:45 pm • link • report

Richmond Metro is a perfect examples of this imbalance - completely overbuilt highway system with nary a traffic jam to be seen...

I lived in Richmond for 4 years and drove everywhere. NEVER was stuck in traffic, and every commute took less than 20 min. The reason is that there are many built in redundancies to the highway system w/good back roads as well.

There really are 5 ways to get anywhere within the Richmond Metro Area (I count Henrico County as well).

Part of the problem in DC is certain bottlenecks. 66 is only 2 lanes (ridiculous) and so are certain parts of the Beltway (insane)--both major commuter areas. One breakdown, or 1 accident and it all grinds to a hault.

I'd venture to say that many of the same problems that plague Metro in DC (with it's paultry 2 track system), also plague our limited highway system. It's not HOW MUCH highway you build, it's how SMARTLY you build it.

And while there are many back road options in Montgomery County, they are less so in Virginia.

This is why Route 50 has been such a saving grace for many a NOVA resident...it's a smartly built pretty wide highway that makes sense and goes where people want to go.

by LuvDusty on Dec 20, 2011 2:14 pm • link • report

"...I lived in Richmond for 4 years and drove everywhere. NEVER was stuck in traffic, and every commute took less than 20 min..."

I agree - never any traffic down that way. But what I was getting at was the pork aspect of VA politics. Namely, for the last 30 years a disproportionate amount of state transportation dollars have gone to build up Richmond because that's where the politial clout is. I don't think traffic down there is better because they built smarter roads persay, just that they built more roads.

Of course, this doesn't address the issue of sprawl in greater RVA, but all the highways have (gulp) actually worked to help make the urban core (The Fan, Carey Town etc.) there VERY pleasant - easy to bike, walk, and drive around etc. So in addition to perhaps RVA being an example contrasting the "Induced Demand" argument against new highways, it is also an example of highways and the urban fabric working together in harmony.

Devil's Advocate, out.

by stevek_fairfax on Dec 22, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report

@fitz

"I guess what I was trying to say is that I agree with that idea but I don't know if in the DC region that the SFH-in-spral to TH-near-transit price ratio could ever decrease enough because the supply of TH's would be hard to meet. Does that make sense?"

Its coherent and could very, very well be true. Im not sure we have empirical proof for it yet, though.

@oboe, wrt to the warrenton to Tysons commuter
A. Tysons is the closest in part of the Tysons-dulles corridor, and thus will generate the longest radial commutes
B. There are of course options closer to Tysons. Of course if someone wants a SFH cheaper than the going rate in Loudoun or NW PWC, or a very large lot, they may well go out to Warrenton. If your point is that Fauqier county too faces these kinds of issues, I suppose you could be correct. I am not all that familiar with Fauqier and its commute issues or its budget.

MLD - the last large block of vacant land in FFX south of the beltway was lorton, which is now close to built out, IIUC, and with newish SFHs selling for 700k or more. There is still demand for SFHs in PWC and stafford. as for wanting to encourage it, who said I did? Im merely explaining the difference between the political positions of PWC vs FFX and Loudoun on the outer beltway.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 22, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report

@stevek

clearly at some point if you put in enough highway capacity, you can outrun the induced demand. I mean at some point the marginal benefit of another or longer errand or a longer commute, is too low, even with zero congestion. And everyone who is going to change location in response has already done so.

Also its clear there are some people who will prefer life in dense (and in the case of Richmond, historical) area even if it does not provide a shorter or easier commute. There are folks in DC today who reverse commute substantial distances.

Given the much large size of metro DC, what would it cost to create the same relative amount of overcapacity here?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 22, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report

A commenter claimed:
"The ICC could have been built for under a $1 billion as recently as 1998 when Glendening caved in to environmentalists, stopped further study, and tried to kill the project by selling off the right of way."

In reality:

The ICC was already considerably over a billion dollars in 1998. The reason the study was stopped then wasn't because of Glendening, but because the Federal Highway Administration realized they were going to lose in Federal Court -- it's called "legal sufficiency." Federal law dating to 1966 says it is illegal to build federally funded transportation projects through parks, and the ICC is essentially a park to park to park superhighway. In 2004, when the ICC was revived from its coma, the highwaymen routed the route around one of the parks (decimating a neighborhood) and then dared the Autobahn Society to mount a serious challenge, knowing they had lost the energy and initiative to do that. The Bush administration also claimed the ICC was needed for so-called Homeland Security, which ensured that the judicial system would be less likely to challenge this approval.

And Glendening didn't try to sell off the right of way for the ICC -- instead, his administration bought more property for the highway, part of it along the "Master Plan Alignment" (next to Paint Branch Park) and part along the Northern Alignment (the route they didn't want and didn't build). The feds had warned them they needed to pretend to study a variety of routes to preclude bias in order to win a lawsuit, so the state spent millions to buy land that wasn't along the preferred route. Cost is no object when a superhighway is required.

It's interesting the ICC was delayed until just after reaching global Peak Oil and the arrival of Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled in the US. Peak Traffic means there is still a lot of traffic but it's not getting any worse. Since federal law requires looking ahead two decades during transportation planning it is reasonable to assume that new highway expansion is not going to be needed. Unfortunately, the "smart growth" crowd fails to look at the limits to growth, although those limits are imposed by geology and physics, not politics.

Remember, the first time "smart growth" was used in a speech was by then Governor Glendening. His "smart growth" law included a loophole for the ICC by permitting "connector roads" between designated growth areas.

The real travel issue on the energy downslope is going to be long distance transport of food from places that still grow food to places that treat food production with contempt, such as the metastasis of the Washington metropolitan area.

by Mark on Dec 26, 2011 1:31 am • link • report

Mark makes an excellent point when he writes about Peaks such as Peak Oil and Peak Traffic Miles.

Yet he doesn't take it to the next level, which I shall endeavor to do.

We've also reached Peak Population Growth Rate, and in fact the main drivers of US population growth -- Latin American nations -- are experiencing a massive decrease in fertility rates. For more information, please see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/fertility-rate-plummets-in-brazil/2011/12/23/gIQAsOXWPP_story.html

At a candidate forum not so long ago in MoCo, I asked incumbent George Leventhal "why do all of you people insist on planning for endless growth based on the assumption that the population will forever increase?" And he came back with the (paraphrased) remark "well, the rest of the world is rapidly increasing, so we should do the same".

Of course I didn't get the opportunity to respond "but that's like saying that because our neighbors all have cancer, therefor we should all start smoking tobacco". His response was exactly that out-of-touch. Yet as the Post article shows, I might be as wrong as he was. To continue the allegory, the neighbors don't have cancer, so to speak, they are not only in remission but healthier than we are.

The US brought the native-born fertility rate down to zero population growth about a decade ago; and European populations are notably below replacement fertility. The Chinese have been aggressively enforcing "two parents one child" for at least one full generation, and it is having profound effects on both Chinese economy and society. Africa, at large, would still be experiencing truly massive population growth if it were not for the scourges of war and HIV synergizing mass casualties, but even as Africa begins to successfully deal with the AIDS plague, they are also urbanizing in many places and with that urbanization comes more education, more career options for women, and both better access to contraception and greater desire and ability to actually use it.

Global Peak Population will probably be reached by around 2040-2050 and thereafter will decline, with significant growth continuing in some hotspots and with significant decline occurring in others. In some cases that decline will be due to one or another calamity or set of calamities, but as the world globally enters the industrial/post-industrial age, we shall see significant drops in fertility rates.

Brazil, as in the article cited above, points the way to a new field of opportunity and hope. With the fertility rate below replacement rate (1.9 children/female) and with so much of the infrastructure of such recent construction (or remaining to be built), Brazil may present much greater opportunities for their declining future generation, in terms of employment. Who emigrates from a nation with a shrinking population and thus an expanding per-capita share of exploitable and mostly-untapped wealth?

The Post's graphic illustrates the whole Latin-American fertility-rate decrease quite handily on a per-nation basis, though curiously it provides no information regarding El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/fertility-rates-plunging-across-latin-america/2011/12/29/gIQAmRWQPP_graphic.html

The immediate conclusion is this: As the sole driver for population growth in the US since the 1990s has been immigration -- legal or otherwise -- as populations stabilize and per-capita wealth rises and modern infrastructures are put in place in the nations which historically contributed most to our population growth since 1990, we shall have far less immigration. Our national population will, at long last and thank goodness, begin to decline.

The summary conclusion (leaving the Greater Washington Metro out of the discussion as it is a special case) is that from now on, the Urban Planning Community must concern itself far less with Growth and far more with Refinement. There's no need to try to limit Growth where there isn't any Growth. There's no need to try to prevent Sprawl when there are no pressures toward it.

In a Zero Population Growth or even a Negative Population Growth scenario -- one which the data suggests is coming on us even now -- you don't make plans for Growth, one way or the other, you don't plan for any future other than to Rebuild the Present.

Stop thinking "if you build it, they will come", because, frankly, they are not coming. Increasingly, there won't be anyone to come; they'll be doing quite fine back home, thanks.

by Thomas Hardman on Dec 31, 2011 10:53 am • link • report

You wrote:

Global Peak Population will probably be reached by around 2040-2050

My reply:

This assumes food production can continue to increase to feed a few billion more mouths. Even if the incredible waste in the fat and rich parts of the world were shifted toward a more equitable approach, it's unlikely food production can be increased much more. Arable land is already tapped out. More people want to eat meat in the not so rich and fat parts of the world (and it takes a lot more inputs to make meat than vegetarian diets). Energy decline and climate chaos will disrupt agriculture more and more.

If we get to nine billion people we probably won't stay there long.

Our monetary system absolutely requires ever expanding growth to create "money" through debt and compound interest. Financial mechanisms for what's euphemistically called sprawl require future growth to pay back subsidies for today's dumb developments.

Now that we have reached Peak Oil, Peak Natural Gas and soon even Peak Coal, future economic expansion is no longer going to be possible. This is the root of what is misperceived as the Great Recession. The financial crisis is not a big storm blowing through, it is the financial equivalent of climate change, a permanent condition.

Unfortunately, those pushing the oxymoron of "smart growth" are as unlikely to admit this as the highway planners.

The laws of physics are not subject to politics, not even liberal Democratic politics.

I hope on the downslope more will understand why these factors were ignored in order to reduce the amount of scapegoating and blame we will all experience.

by Mark on Jan 1, 2012 1:59 am • link • report

@Mark: You're preaching to the choir.

I keep pointing out to people that there's a historical parallel to be seen going back to the final days of the Roman Empire. Most people's brains shut down when you mention historical parallels, which might be why they continue to overlook certain facts of life.

After the invasions of the Empire in the West (Goths, Vandals, etc.) the Empire in the East was able to maintain internal order and generally to repel external invasion. This came at a vast cost to the general populace, whose population continued to rise. Eventually almost all were reduced from the rank of citizens to the conditions of serfdom, forbidden on pain of death to travel more than about 10 miles from their place of birth, and required to enter the trade (and often guild) of their parents. Population continued to build, while agriculture reached its limits. Even before the arrival of the Plague, a natural decimation by famine came in the previous decade. Weakened by hunger in a highly-stratified society where the rich got richer and the poor got worked to death, when the Plague bacteria arrived, they found fertile fields, so to speak.

Why mention this at all, as it sounds all too familiar?

It's because of what happened after the Black Death... with a vast labor shortage, with probably six-of-ten estates left to fallow, with wealth not so much hoarded as left around for the taking by the survivors, with too few jailers to enforce outrageous laws, the Renaissance erupted in a blaze of glory, with more intellectual progress made in two decades than in the preceding millennium. By the time that overcrowding and consequent social stratification began to resume, Cristobal Colon returned with news of the New World, and within 30 year, Hernan Cortes had brought the Old World diseases that would kill about 90 percent of the natives of two continents.

For the next 500 years, there was a Colonial Economy, an economy of surplus, where you didn't so much need to earn a wage as you could exercise the opportunity to make wealth simply by picking it up and working it. The native left no titles nor estates, land was free and available simply by homesteading it, etc. Later this Colonial Economy became a Frontier Economy, with the settled and developed areas effectively becoming the motherland and the undeveloped areas beyond the frontier becoming the new colonies providing raw materials and "breathing room" to the motherland's industry. The American Century has ended, however, and you do correctly point out that "[t]he financial crisis is not a big storm blowing through, it is the financial equivalent of climate change, a permanent condition". We're effectively at the point of increasing social stratification, overpopulation, and resource shortages seen in the final centuries of the Roman Empire.

Over the last few years I've had this debate repeatedly with the Urban Planning types. All you have to do is point out that there does come a point of diminishing returns which cuts across all aspects of Planning, not just Urban Planning. You run out of space, you have too many people, and resources become so costly that the margins narrow to near invisibility.

Generally speaking, though, if you don't have endlessly increasing population and expanding urban/suburban domains, there's almost no need for Urban Planners. They're out of a job and don't even have much to talk about if the population is shrinking and buildings are left abandoned to rot in disuse, rather than being constantly built hither and yon. Yet that is where the trends are going. They got a slight taste of it when the District of Columbia lost a full sixth of its population over the late 1980s to mid-1990s. The massive wealth and new construction we see in the District are mostly due to equally massive infusions of money from Congress as a starter push for the Revitalization. Once that got rolling, huge piles of money were made and are continuing to be made... through razing and rebuilding of entire neighborhood, through reclamation of Brownfields and the deconstruction of "welfare as we knew it", etc. And now the population's on the rise again, downtown... because before the new was to be built, the old had to be torn down. Urban Planners generally don't like to discuss the immense success of this, because it simply is not Growth. It is Recycling.

As to how, exactly, we finally reach the limits to growth and then pull back, hopefully we will do it by intention and design, rather than by the same means and for comparable reasons as the Roman Empire's tottering fat zombie fell over to rise from its own ashes as the Enlightenment.

If you've got three bucks and an e-reader and time for a 50-pager, you might be interested in this:

http://www.amazon.com/After-Death-Post-Pandemic-Survival-ebook/dp/B005LR7QJU

And note in today's Washington Post that the H5N1 flu is once again emerging in China... Happy New Year!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/china-suspects-bus-driver-infected-with-bird-flu-in-southern-city-bordering-hong-kong/2011/12/30/gIQA78NWRP_story.html

by Thomas Hardman on Jan 1, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

@Mark,

Unfortunately, those pushing the oxymoron of "smart growth" are as unlikely to admit this as the highway planners.

Not sure I buy everything you're selling, but there's nothing incompatible with the urbanist "agenda" if you think of "strategic contraction" as a key component of "smart growth". Look at the development that Metro-accessible Rockville has gone through over the last 5-10 years. And Tysons' development planned. And the growth of middle-class housing DC's urban core.

by oboe on Jan 1, 2012 2:24 pm • link • report

As REM sang, "don't go back to Rockville."

Rockville Pike is UGLY, even if some yuppie townhouses (which lack any soul) were built within a kilometer of a metro station.

Putting in denseness near Metro makes car traffic worse, since only a fraction of the new residents use Metro to commute, shop, etc. Metro reduces the rate of traffic increase, not overall traffic.

Tyson's overdevelopment is a direct consequence of the doubling of the military budget under Ronald Raygun and now, the new Fatherland Security complex.

Tyson's is a giant military contractors base. How many of those shiny, anonymous buildings are NOT working for some shadowy three letter agency? And how many executives and former colonels with advanced security clearances are waiting for Tyson's metro to open up so they can ditch their expensive car for a 90 minute commute from their exurb house to take a bus or two to get to the five billion dollar Silver Line?

As the oil declines, the ability of FOOD to be transported across time zones will also decline. THAT is the elephant in the room that so-called Smart Growth fails to look at. People will drive less on the energy downslope whether they want to or not, because you cannot burn fuel that does not exist. We are already seeing the cusp of this as rising oil prices ended traffic growth in the US (the Federal Highway Administration has a great set of VMT statistics that show this). This is not a major decline of traffic, especially in areas where out of control federal spending on war planning is still running full steam ahead (ie. 270 corridor, Fairfax County, I-95 in Virginia). But traffic has peaked in the US, something neither Smart Growthers nor highway planners discuss even though the physical facts are well documented, for anyone who cares to look.

How to feed these populations without moving food across time zones should be the real concern of urban planners, but it is not yet a public preoccupation. Obviously, food just materializes in grocery stores without having to do work to make it come into existence.

No previous civilization - and no future society - has ever been this disconnected from their food supply. Future generations, after the energy crash, will marvel at our culture's disinterest in where our food comes from.

by Mark on Jan 1, 2012 4:18 pm • link • report

@Mark: It's worth considering that more cars (and other non-rail vehicles) which operate largely or entirely on centrally-generated electrical energy, are being produced and are being well-accepted by the marketplaces. Given sufficient time, a great many electrical vehicles could be on our roads, especially as petrochemical fuels become too expensive. And there's a lot to be said for the idea of heavy freight transport on electrified rail. Considering that most diesel freight locomotives are already electrical (though the electricity is generated by onboard diesel engine), this might be a less-complicated change-over than you might think. We would need more alternative sources of reliable electrical generation, of course.

by Thomas Hardman on Jan 1, 2012 8:07 pm • link • report

Electric cars are powered by coal, nukes and natural gas, with a smaller amount of power from dams, a few wind turbines and some other minor sources. It also takes a lot of energy and mineral ores (non-renewable) to make new electric cars. Peak Oil is here now, not two or three decades in the future, yet these so-called alternatives are mostly vaporware.

I've used solar electricity for two decades, it's great but it's not going to replace what we're using.

Diesel locomotives use electricity on board but they are not electrically powered. And most grocery stores are not on freight train lines.

The time for transitioning all of these systems was several decades ago. Now, it's mitigation on the downslope, at best.

The fact we cannot get serious improvements in vehicle efficiency or an end to highway expansion suggests that electric cars are mostly propaganda to keep people thinking there is going to be a techno-fix that rescues us at the last minute. Deus ex machina.

Sorry that I think electric cars are a distraction, a bad joke.

When you go into a grocery store this time of year, look at the origin labels (if available) for most of the fruit. Your berries, for example, are mostly coming from Chile during our winter. Good luck figuring out how to run airplanes on electricity, whether coal generated or solar generated.

Peak oil is past. Peak Natural Gas is past. Peak Coal is either here or near. Peak Uranium is also here (half of US nuclear fuel is currently coming from recycled Russian warheads).

I hope we get to Peak Denial soon.

------

from "Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change"
by William R. Catton, Jr. (1980: University of Illinois Press)

carrying capacity: maximum permanently supportable load.
cornucopian myth: euphoric belief in limitless resources
drawdown: stealing resources from the future.
cargoism: delusion that technology will always save us from
overshoot: growth beyond an area's carrying capacity, leading to
crash: die-off.

by Mark on Jan 1, 2012 9:54 pm • link • report

@Mark: Let me try to set you back a little from the hyperbole.

When you're saying that there haven't been any serious improvements in vehicle efficiency, I have to disagree. I have a "small pickup" from the mid-1980s, which gets at best something like 18 MPG unloaded on limited-access highways. Around town, 13 MPG is a good bet. Yet modern trucks with comparable capabilities might get 18 MPG around town, and more like 22-25 on the highway. More to the point, contrast my hobby car, a 1983 Olds Ninety Eight Brougham (5.0L with quadrajet) with a new Honda Fit. In its day, the Olds was actually pretty typical for American cars and it gets 10 MPG on required premium. The new Honda Fit is pretty typical for the mainstream modern car and it gets nearly 40 MPG on low-test. A fourfold increase in efficiency isn't "serious"?

I should also point out that conservation measures are now available which were nonexistent 20 years ago. It's not just the rapidly decreasing costs of solar photovoltaic panels, but the outstanding efficiency of the new LEDs (to say nothing of newer batteries) that points the way to a new day where most SFRs can at least provide all of their lighting needs via solar power. Additionally, lowered costs combine with tax incentives to make it actually practical to put a 5kW photovoltaic system on practically every 1/4-acre lot in the Burbs. For an example, see:

https://www.bgehome.com/solar/public/indexGgl.php

... and start clicking options for a PEPCO-served SFR with "good" siting and check out the options from "lease" to "own". If this becomes widespread, a lot of non-industrial electrical generation is sidelined to solar. Also, a lot of industrial-capacity electrical solar generation is either coming on line very soon, or is in planning and construction phases.

This is no way means that we should continue towards population overshoot, or fail to try to reduce population -- globally -- to both sustainable numbers and sustainable densities. That could take a long time. But there are rate curves here which can (and should) be shifted. On the one hand, we are seeing the fertility-rate curves being shifted towards replacement-rate or even (as in European native populations) towards half-replacement rate. On the other hand, for the non-developed world, the curve is drastically shifted towards massive per-capita increases in resource consumption, simply because modern wealthy societies consume far more than impoverished relic societies.

The per-capita resource-consumption change-rate in most of the "modern industrial/post-industrial" societies is pretty flat, or heading towards decline in some places. Thus, the task at hand is to try to accelerate any such decline, which we already do in great part by recycling. Yet there is of course a lot of room for improvement in recycling, both in efficiencies of the collection and processing, and in rates of participation.

When you mention the globalism of fresh food, sure, anyone who likes lamb noticed hat happened to the previously very low price of Australian lamb when the last major oil price spike hit. Suddenly it became far cheaper to buy even choice cuts of US beef. Market forces shifted US consumption away from Australian products more towards US products. I'm young enough to remember the vast supplies and limited selection year-round of flash-frozen produce in grocery freezer aisles... though out in the countryside, far from the rail lines and chain-store groceries, mom-and-pop were almost certainly canning their fruits and possibly many of their vegetables. With solar power, most places far from the rail lines can revert to canning, heat/smoke curing meats, and dry-storage vegetables and grains such as beans and oats.

Yet all such survivable conversions depend on a fairly rapid but extremely orderly intentional decline in the fertility rate, and there's no time like the present. The faster we get a start on it, the greater the number of people who will actually survive.

And as mentioned elsewhere, less people need less roads, and outside of the agricultural zones, they can live more densely to take advantage of centralization of utilities, transport, and storage.

Then again, I don't know if I'd want to be living in a big box full of 10,000 people all sharing the same highly-process and environmentally efficient air-supply system if something virulent and airborne went pandemic. The city is not the place to be living if you want to avoid getting sick.

by Thomas Hardman on Jan 2, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

40 mpg is not that special, since 100 mpg technology has been around for at least two decades.

A third of the light bulbs in my house are LEDs, the rest are (toxic) compact fluorescents. They're connected directly to a photovoltaic system.

Most people in our society don't even know where their food comes from and certainly don't have the skills to even convert dry beans into dinner, let alone food preservation techniques such as canning, dry storage, pickling, etc. How many suburban yards are growing substantial amounts of vegetables? Is it even one percent?

Fossil fuel enabled the vast increase in human population and food production / distribution. How to avoid catastrophe as the fuel goes away is probably the biggest challenge humanity has faced, but it's not a polite topic of conversation.

------

Efficiency of Cars Not Yet For Sale

MPG (Highway)

Toyota AXV
110

Renault Vesta2
107

GM Ultralite
100

VW VW-E80
99

Ford (unnamed)
92

Peugeot VERA+
87

Volvo LCP 2000
81

Renault EVE+
81

GM TPC
74

Source: Greenpeace, "The Environmental Impact of the Car" (1992)
 
 
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race."
—H. G. Wells, 1904

by Mark on Jan 2, 2012 7:18 pm • link • report

Mark, please allow me to recommend to anyone with too much time on their hands, a rather good if less-than-expected fiction novella, Julian, by Robert Charles Wilson.

See the review for more detail.

It's a little SF story about life after "the Efflorescence of Oil".

While I've seen more original and more intricate plot from Edgar Rice Burroughs, this one has exceptionally well-thought-through background details in the story. Rather grim was the part where a 19th-Century-style pitched battle takes place, and to dig their trenches, the soldiers have to dig down through multiple layers of the interred non-survivors of the End of Oil. In the rest of the novel, everyone does know how to can and pickle and smoke, because their ancestors did... and that's who survived, mostly, the folks who had "quaint hobbies" in pre-technical lifestyles.

Contrast and compare with the Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi (2009 Nebula, 2010 Hugo winner). As you say, it's not polite conversation but every teenager I've spoken with in recent years is far more convinced that their generation will see this come to pass, than my generation expected to see mankind destroyed nuclear war. Yet we did somehow manage to make it to the modern day without nuking ourselves back to primordial ooze, and maybe we can make it to the post-oil days with minimal horror.

I maintain that this widespread knowledge of what's coming, coupled with a denial of anything to be done about it, is what's behind the whole zombie fandom craze. Nobody actually plans to be a zombie anymore than they actually plan to be reduced to cannibalism because the oil ran out and so did the food supply and distribution systems. Those who make plans to not-be zombies have a chance to survive... though they're outnumbered thousands to one and the zombies just keep on coming and coming and coming.

So to speak and to take the metaphor perhaps a bit too far, only by working endlessly to halt and reverse the insane endless-growth policies, can one make sure that there are less zombies, rather than more, when the time inevitably comes. I don't know that we can work fast enough to assure that there will be none.

BTW I'm working to take myself off of the grid as fast as possible. Get thee to amazon.com and search out 4W 12V LED, solar charge controller, and 100W monocrystalline. Prices are way down and capabilities are way up, especially for the LED lights just now coming on line. When you can get the 4W 12V equivalent of an 80W halogen for only $7.00, getting off-grid looks far more do-able. For 8W a room (call it $20.00) you can mostly do away with 120V AC, at least for purposes of lighting. 10 rooms, 80W, solar panels are $2.75 a watt nowadays... but you need your own roof to mount it on, which you cannot do if you live in a Yuppie Convenience Tower of high-density mixed-use transit-centric nature.

Hmmm, maybe I will convert some of the yard to crops use...

by Thomas Hardman on Jan 4, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report