Greater Greater Washington

Roads


Widening I-66 achieves little vs. cheaper alternatives

Virginians have debated widening I-66 for many years, but preliminary results of a VDOT study show that I-66 commuters could get the same benefits and save hundreds of millions by just converting existing lanes to HOT lanes instead. Drivers and transit riders alike would also benefit from turning the shoulder of US-50 into a dedicated bus lane.


Photo by Mrs. Gemstone on Flickr.

VDOT is close to completing its "multimodal" study of the I-66 corridor inside the Beltway. The study team looked at a wide variety of options, from Metro to buses to adding lanes to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies like better rider information and dynamic ridesharing.

The full study isn't out yet, but VDOT has released information on four "packages" of improvements they modeled:

  1. Make both lanes of I-66 free for buses and HOV-3 at all times, and toll single-passenger vehicles (SOV) and HOV-2 at all times.
  2. Add a 3rd lane to I-66. Make all 3 free for buses and HOV-3, tolled for SOV and HOV-2 at all times.
  3. Add a 3rd lane to I-66 to be HOV-2 in the reverse peak. In the peak direction (eastbound mornings, westbound evenings), keep all lanes HOV-3. Off-peak, leave all lanes open to anyone (as they are today).
  4. Make the shoulder of US-50 into a bus lane. Add express bus service to downtown DC from places along the I-66 and Dulles corridors.
All of these assume that Virginia has finished all of the projects in the existing Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP). That includes the so-called "spot improvements" that widen I-66 in select places, and also converting I-66 to HOV-3.

Packages 1 and 2, the HOT lane options, both would help SOV and HOV-2 drivers and hurt HOV-3 drivers, compared to the default of having I-66 be HOV-3 only. But there's not a whole lot of difference between the two. According to the model, having the extra lane would slightly harm transit and speed drivers by about 2%, at a cost of $310-685 million.

Package 1 (convert existing lanes to HOT lanes):

Package 2 (add 3rd lane, convert all to HOT lanes):

Package 3 induces more driving but doesn't do much to change travel times for anyone. Package 4, the US-50 bus lanes, would improve travel times on transit by 7%, and drivers benefit by a very small amount. The presentation says that a number of people switch from rail to bus because the buses improve, which should also help with crowding on Metro.

Package 3 (add HOV lane):

Package 4 (bus lane on US-50):

The packages also factor in projects like better bicycle and pedestrian facilities, TDM programs, Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) like digital signs and ramp meters, added bus service and more.

These graphs are all a tiny bit confusing because VDOT assumed as the "baseline" that I-66 has changed from the current HOV-2 to HOV-3, and that they've already widened in some places with "spot improvements."

It would have been more helpful for laypeople if we could also compare each alternative to what would happen if VDOT didn't build the "spot improvements" and didn't change to HOV-3. In fact, an initial impetus for this study was to find out whether the spot improvements are a good idea in the first place, or whether other options would work better.

VDOT will release the study, including more details and its recommendations, in June. It seems unlikely that they would recommend widening I-66 given these results. A combination of options 1 and 4 seems like it could deliver real improvements to both drivers and transit riders without spending a lot of money on complex, unpopular, and minimally helpful highway widening projects.

Residents can provide comments to VDOT by emailing info@i66multimodalstudy.com.

Update: The original version of this post showed incorrect graphs for packages 2 and 3. The graphs have been corrected to match those from the VDOT presentation.

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

I'd like to see I-66 widened to six lanes between exits 67 and 71. That, combined with the Silver Line, would help that corridor significantly.

A dedicated, or close to it, bus lane on US 50 sounds good too.

by WFY on Apr 26, 2012 11:33 am • linkreport

With option 1, I-66 should be be removed and changed to 267 (Dulles Toll Road). The funds should be used to help mitigate the future increase in tolls on the current DTR due to the silver line construction.

The current Dulles toll road should change to a dynamic tolling system. No one is going to pay $8.00 to ride the DTR at 11pm.

Virginia should also acquire the Dulles Greenway. It is currently wasting money upgrading Route 7 in Loundon to complete with the greenway.

by mcs on Apr 26, 2012 11:48 am • linkreport

I think Options 3 and 4 could both be done. I-66 needs improvements and US-50 needs improvements. There needs the be some dedicated transit lane on 50. I don't think it should be as messy as it is after Seven Corners. And in the long-term, the US-50 corridor in Arlington and Falls Church is a major opportunity for redevelopment. So Seven Corners and US-50 need to be significantly modified.

I wonder whether option 3 could be modified to include a toll as well. I like the idea of a toll option on I-66. I think you could modify option 3, get rid of HOV-2 off-peak and instead make it free for HOV-3 and buses and toll SOV's.

by Vik on Apr 26, 2012 11:49 am • linkreport

Toll it. Congestion pricing.

by Alex B. on Apr 26, 2012 11:52 am • linkreport

Wow. Tolling an existing untolled highway, would be unprecedented locally, and unusual nationally, correct?

I suspect it would be politically acceptable locally only because the HOV2 is widely resented, and the opening up to SOV would be net gain, and the HOV3 users would still get to use the road free - the only currently free users who would pay would be the two to a vehicle users. I assume that also makes it easier to be accepted under federal law?

I agree that bus lanes on rte 50 would be a good idea. I think a fair amount of discussion and preparation will be necessary before advancing proposals for significant densification in that corridor though.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 26, 2012 11:59 am • linkreport

How many buses take 66? How many take 50?

how would you toll -- given that you've still got single passenger to the airport?

by charlie on Apr 26, 2012 12:10 pm • linkreport

@charlie

Have a sensor at the airport to show the vehicle went to the airport. If the vehicle does not go to the airport, the SOV/HOV2 toll would apply.

by mcs on Apr 26, 2012 12:17 pm • linkreport

A real plus to consider in packages 1 and 2 (especially 1, given the lower cost) relative to the CLRP is the fairness with which it treats HOV-2 users in the corridor. Because 66 has been HOV-2 for over 15 years, a huge number of these users have made their residence and/or employment decisions, and in many cases established enduring rideshare/carpool arrangements, based on their access to I-66 at peak times. The benefits of access have suffered markedly over the second half of this period because of Virginia's foolish decision to allow many hybrid vehicles -- a good number of which represent very little improvement in fuel economy -- to use the HOV lanes and dramatically increase the crowding, but remain substantial. Although they would have to pay a toll under an HOT arrangement, at least they're not excluded altogether in favor of HOV-3 (Is it possible to have two separate toll levels for SOV vs. HOV-2?)

Question: Do the VMT charts reflect miles traveled on all roads in the corridor (principally 66 + 50 + 29) or on 66 alone? And do the PMT charts include transit miles?

by Arl Fan on Apr 26, 2012 1:36 pm • linkreport

The problem with all of these packages is that they do nothing to address the most significant problem in that corridor -- congestion at the rosslyn metro tunnel. Once the silver line is running, they will need to reduce the number of trains on the orange line to give some capacity to silver. That will make the "orange crush" worse than now.

Realistically, another potomac metro tunnel isn't happening. I see the best option as building a third lane on 66 and running express buses on that lane that go all the way to chinatown.

Congestion pricing also isn't a bad idea but not tolls at all times. There's no reason to toll when there's no congestion.

by Falls Church on Apr 26, 2012 3:31 pm • linkreport

@Falls Church

The Orange Crush isn't really going to get worse - most of the passengers who add to the crush get on at EFC or further in - these stations are served by the silver line as well. Also there will be more trains total along that orange/silver segment (this is starting with rush plus soon).

A new Potomac tunnel and separated Blue line will happen eventually. I wouldn't bank on things getting moving on that for at minimum a decade and probably more like 20 years.

by MLD on Apr 26, 2012 3:45 pm • linkreport

Arlington needs to get out of the way of progress and allow 66 to be widened for the benefit of those living outside their liberal-hipster People's Republic of car-optional lifestyles. Hopefully, Governnor McDonnell will overrule their insane county government and mandate they accept the highway widening.

by Seephul67 on Apr 26, 2012 4:25 pm • linkreport

@MLD

Good point about the orange crush in the near term. That said, Tysons is expected to add 200K residents in the coming decades while the total number of orange/silver line trains won't expand beyond what's slated for Rush+. So, eventually, and quite possibly in 2-3 years when the first condo towers in Tysons will be finished, we'll be adding a lot more passengers to orange/silver without adding capacity.

A new Potomac tunnel and separated Blue line will happen eventually. I wouldn't bank on things getting moving on that for at minimum a decade and probably more like 20 years.

Even 20 years probably isn't enough time for this to happen. That's why I say there should be an interim solution. I'm no transpo engineer so I don't know if adding a 3rd lane to 66 for express buses to Chinatown would work logistically but some kind of transit capacity needs to be added at the Rosslyn tunnel for Tysons (and Arlington/Fairfax in general) to hit its growth targets.

Regardless, it's a shame this study doesn't even consider one of the biggest transpo problems in that corridor. Packages 2 and 4 probably mitigate the Rosslyn tunnel problem to some extent but it seems almost incidental. Maybe Package 2 could be modified where the tolls generated are used to fund express buses to downtown.

by Falls Church on Apr 26, 2012 4:25 pm • linkreport

What I find annoying about this is the notion that increasing miles driven is a bad thing. No, increasing miles driven is a good thing. People don't just drive around for the hell of it. Every trip not taken is a lost opportunity for some sort of commerce.

As for me, I would go to Leesburg much more often if it didn't cost so much in time and resources. It takes an hour to drive each way, it costs around $20 in tolls and gas, and there are large windows that I must avoid due to congestion. Oh and buses are not sufficiently frequent or reliable. I would use them if they were but the Alexandria to Leesburg trip is a little too uncommon to have a reasonable transit link.

by movement on Apr 26, 2012 4:26 pm • linkreport

Arlington needs to get out of the way of progress and allow 66 to be widened for the benefit of those living outside their liberal-hipster People's Republic of car-optional lifestyles.

Why are you so eager to go to the "liberal-hipster People's Republic of Arlington/DC"? It's a free country, you don't have to go there.

If the reason you need to go to Arlington/DC is because that's where all the jobs, economic development, and progress is happening, then perhaps you should stop telling them to change their ways because it's clearly working.

by Falls Church on Apr 26, 2012 4:30 pm • linkreport

"What I find annoying about this is the notion that increasing miles driven is a bad thing. No, increasing miles driven is a good thing. People don't just drive around for the hell of it. Every trip not taken is a lost opportunity for some sort of commerce. "

Or driving 15 miles to shop instead of 5. Now thats probably good for them, or they wouldnt do it. Is it a social good? It may not be - retail has high fixed costs, and other possible causes of market failures - so even ignoring the externalities of the VMT, the benefits of additional VMTs are debatable.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 26, 2012 4:44 pm • linkreport

Or take one of 5 trains (orange mainly, but you could do the blue, yellow, or either VRE line) that go from fairfax in all of them to DC. If you don't live in fairfax and are still commuting to DC then adding about 6 miles worth of lane that still ends on either E st. or Constitution avenue isn't really going to fix your problems with your commute.

/I know the person is probably just trolling but this is therapeutic for me.

by x on Apr 26, 2012 4:45 pm • linkreport

@Seephul67

You made a choice to move to the far out suburbs, while needing to get to Arlington/DC often. No reason your bad choice should force something on other people who didn't make an equally bad choice.

As far as liberal-hipster-whatever other stereotype you threw in, local government must happen right? Until it doesn't work for you, then you want bigger government (IE VA State) to step in eh. See the disconnect?

by Kyle W on Apr 26, 2012 4:45 pm • linkreport

@movement
What I find annoying about this is the notion that increasing miles driven is a bad thing. No, increasing miles driven is a good thing. People don't just drive around for the hell of it. Every trip not taken is a lost opportunity for some sort of commerce.

Increasing VMT is useless unless you're also increasing PERSON miles traveled. See Package 1 in which VMT goes up but PMT barely moves. Package 2 does a little better. Package 3 is much better - more added PMT with little added VMT.

You are right that people don't just get in their cars and drive around for the hell of it, but just increasing VMT does nothing (and is detrimental) if you're shifting people off of transit, or inducing people to shift their trips from outside the peak period into the peak period (creating more peak congestion).

You don't go to Leesburg more often because you have to actually pay for the infrastructure and fuel to get you there and the time it takes? I don't understand your point. I would go to China more if there were a free teleportation service that got me there instantly. So what?

by MLD on Apr 26, 2012 4:46 pm • linkreport

Forgot to also mention that spending hundreds of millions in government funds on infrastructure so you can drive 15 miles instead of 5 to save $10 on groceries is also a stupid use of our money.

VMT for VMT's sake is not an economic driver. Longer trips do not mean more is getting done.

by MLD on Apr 26, 2012 5:08 pm • linkreport

@MLD
It is a catch 22. I might not have gotten my job in the first place if I wasn't willing to commute most of the time to Ft. Belvoir. It isn't really an option for folks living in or near the corporate office in Leesburg. However, if it were easier to get to Leesburg, I could get more face-to-face time with my colleagues which would be helpful. You can have all of the technology in the world but it doesn't replace face-to-face interaction (which is why they needed someone willing to commute to Ft. Belvoir in the first place).

What options are there? The customer I support isn't going to move. Most of our local clients are in the Dulles Corridor so my company isn't likely to move. A transportation network that linked the two of them more effectively would do wonders for my company and others in the region. Whether the overall cost/benefit is there, I don't know. Since there are no viable transit options between the two places, I don't see pushing people off of transit is a factor here.

The other thing I worry about with this plan is encouraging people to abandon I66 even further for GW Parkway, I395, the Beltway, and various local roads. I don't think Alexandria has any interest in hosting traffic from people avoiding Arlington.

by movement on Apr 26, 2012 5:17 pm • linkreport

@MLD
I think the 15 miles to save $10 on groceries is a strawman.

by movement on Apr 26, 2012 5:18 pm • linkreport

just increasing VMT does nothing (and is detrimental) if you're shifting people off of transit

Disagree.

From the standpoint of the personal preferences of those in the vehicles, there is aspositive: allowing them to satisfy their desire to drive in an SOV (SUV or otherwise) instead of in an HOV or taking transit. Whether that's a benefit or detriment to society overall is another question - one that most on GGW believe to be a detriment but is really dependent on your views on the environment, energy consumption/importation, physical fitness, etc.

BUT -- most of those people, although now choosing their preferred mode of transit, probably expect something MORE from a multi-$100Ms project -- namely a noticeable reduction in travel time for that mode. And that's what they're not getting because of induced demand.

by Arl Fan on Apr 26, 2012 5:19 pm • linkreport

Since there are no viable transit options between the two places, I don't see pushing people off of transit is a factor here.

But, what is a factor is that if you make it easier to have companies in Leesburg and clients in Ft. Belvoir, you will have more of both. Instead, if you don't spend money to facilitate those locational choices, companies and clients will be more likely to locate in the core.

You can have all of the technology in the world but it doesn't replace face-to-face interaction (which is why they needed someone willing to commute to Ft. Belvoir in the first place).

What options are there?

The solution is that the Ft. Belvoir client needs to be willing to pay a premium for services that come from Leesburg to compensate you for the added time and effort of commuting. This is similar to how produce costs more in Hawaii and Alaska because it needs to come from farther away. It's just part of the cost of living in HI/AK or locating your base in Belvoir.

by Falls Church on Apr 26, 2012 5:27 pm • linkreport

How are the new HOT lanes and some of the proposals here supposed to allow for toll-free driving for HOV-3? I assume that the tolls are paid by E-Z Pass, so I don't understand how that would work.

by Gray on Apr 26, 2012 5:32 pm • linkreport

@movement
I'll try to hit your concerns:
1. If your employer would like to more efficiently serve clients both in the tech corridor and the DC area at large, then it would benefit them to move somewhere that is proximate to both, rather than at the edge of the tech corridor that is furthest from the rest of DC. Otherwise they are just asking the government to subsidize one part of their business (transportation) because they chose to locate in what I assume appeared to be a "cheaper" place to do business since office space (land) was cheaper.

2. The other thing I worry about with this plan is encouraging people to abandon I66 even further for GW Parkway, I395, the Beltway, and various local roads. I don't think Alexandria has any interest in hosting traffic from people avoiding Arlington.
I'm not sure why people would take the beltway or the parkway or 395 if they need to get from A to B which are two places served by I-66. If I want to get from Falls Church to Rosslyn or DC how does 395 existing help me?

@Arl Fan
You are right that there is some small personal benefit to the individual if they want to drive an SOV instead of using HOV/transit. It's outweighed by the massive disbenefit to society of taking your SOV instead of other options. And it's not based on your "views" - SOV is worse for the environment (FACT) and consumes more energy (FACT).

by MLD on Apr 26, 2012 5:35 pm • linkreport

@Falls Church
The solution is that the Ft. Belvoir client needs to be willing to pay a premium for services that come from Leesburg to compensate you for the added time and effort of commuting.

Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way. My billable rates are based on my salary with fixed adjustments for overhead and profit.

@MLD
they chose to locate in what I assume appeared to be a "cheaper" place to do business since office space (land) was cheaper.

Actually, I think the founders wanted to be in a nice (even walkable) community that had reasonably good access to a large number of our customers. IMHO Leesburg is the only town that really fits that description.

I'm not sure why people would take the beltway or the parkway or 395 if they need to get from A to B which are two places served by I-66.

I66 is the link between Fairfax and Arlington, DC, and northern parts of Alexandria (basically everything north of Braddock Rd., east of I395, and west of the railroad tracks).

by movement on Apr 26, 2012 6:24 pm • linkreport

The impact on travel time bar graphs are incorrect--the graph shown for package 2 is erroneously that for package 1 and the graph shown for package 3 is erroneously that for package 2. The real graph for package 3 is pretty flat (+2%,-.5%,+1%).

Package 3 strikes me as better than packages 1 or 2, but I can't say if it's really worth the extra cost over baseline LRP. Package 4 is really a separate binary option.

Unfortunately, the metric I most want to see is the total throughput as a result of all the packages--package 4 has great transit time improvements, but how many people would that actually be moving?

by Joshua Cranmer on Apr 26, 2012 6:31 pm • linkreport

Falls Church is spot on with respect to problems with the Orange Line and the (non)likelihood of another Potomac River Tunnel. Rail service in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor will improve with the removal of three Blue Line trains and the addition of a total of three Silver and/or Orange Line trains. But Orange Line service west of East Falls Church will become at least relatively worse as each Silver Line train means one less Orange Line train. Prior to any changes, there are 14 Orange Line trains per hour at peak hours (13 Blue Line trains). Removing three Blue Line trains leaves a combination of 17 Silver/Blue Line trains. Unless the Silver Line is a bust, that means fewer Orange Line trains.
As part of the Tysons studies, Fairfax County was given an estimate of between $5 and 6 billion for a new Potomac River tunnel. Add the county's share of building a new tunnel to what it must pay to build the Silver Line, the $5.46 billion by 2051 for new roads and non-rail transit for Tysons, and whatever else is needed for the rest of the county, and we aren't going to see a new tunnel for many year, IMO.
The transit mess can be laid at the door of the Tysons Land Use Task Force that refused to do any transportation planning as part of its multi-year waste of resources. Instead of pretending density fixes all, the Task Force should have uncovered and raised the tunnel issue years ago.

by tmtfairfax on Apr 26, 2012 6:38 pm • linkreport

@movement

No movement, unfortunately the world does work that way. If your company can not efficiently address your clients needs because it becomes insolvent for you to be in two places at once, then your client will move on to a better situated company. This is why we dont have IT firms that deal with the government located in Missouri. Because face time IS important, and companies that chose to relocate further our are in the same boat as people who moved further out. They need to re-evaluate their own selections as opposed to asking for tax payers to create obtrusive and expensive highways just so that their bad decision a decade ago to relocate can work better. If your company WANTS to keep their client then they will have to weigh the benefits and detriment of their own geography.

People and companies need to grow up and realize that highways are not their personal teleportation devices to afford cheap office space and undercut companies that ARE located in appropriate geographic locations to their client.

by Tysons Engineer on Apr 26, 2012 6:56 pm • linkreport

@TMT

Wow... we actually finally agree on something. But unfortunately you dont bring up the point that the 5 billion (actually only 1.1 billion needed for Tysons when you remove widening of Route 7 outside of tysons and ROW dedications by developers which dont actually require any funding) should be removed from wasteful road widening projects and put towards transit only. Currently only 500 million dollars in the next 50 years goes towards transit/pedestrians/bikes in Tysons.

Beyond all that, I hope that the increase in density allowed in Tysons will create enough revenue in the short term that Fairfax can finally rid itself of its dependence on VDOT for capital funding. This transition will likely require a 1-time capital cost to cover year #1 costs for maintenance of $300 million that VDOT typically pays for us through our own gas tax/transfer tax.

Density remains the solution, because with density comes higher tax returns for the same exact public funding need. A highrise with 1.8 million dollars in tax payments a year needs the same public infrastructure as a building that returns 2.6 million dollars in tax payments per year. This additional density, when carried across 30-40 new highrises can create 25 or 30 million dollars extra every year that could be funneled into a special fund. It would take about a decade in this method but after year 1 we could attain back the nearly 400 million dollars that Fairfax sends to Richmond(or we could try before we get slapped back by the state) providing a windfall for projects like a new tunnel crossing for Fairfax only, which helps both Fairfax and Arlington clearly.

The biggest point here is that 3 billion dollar new tunnel for Fairfax would not be a big deal if we retake control of our own public assets and exercise restraint through a special fund untouched by other needs specific to improving the economic viability of the county through transportation.

by Tysons Engineer on Apr 26, 2012 7:11 pm • linkreport

As Joshua Cranmer notes above, the graphics included for Packages 2 and 3 in the original GGW post are erroneous.

In addition, the lack of clear legends or other explanation in the study presentation materials is confusing to me. For example, are the travel volumes and congestion levels reported for entire weekdays, for just the AM and PM peak periods, for just the AM or PM peak, or for something else? Regardless, however, these data are corridor-wide (e.g.,include Rtes 29, 50, and other arterial roads) and are not just for I-66.

As David Alpert notes, the reported findings are confusing because the study assumes a 2040 "CLRP-PLUS" baseline that includes (politically unrealistic) I-66 HOV3+ restrictions AND a vast increase in bus service (1200 added bus seats/peak hour) and new TDM measures that have NO currently identified funding source by 2040. The study presentation slide titled "Baseline Assumptions for 2040" shows that the 2040 baseline assumes LESS corridor-wide VMT than in 2007 combined with a 1 million growth in person miles travel (i.e., a substantial increase in trips/vehicle over current conditions). With such a positive--but unrealistic, baseline--it's hard for any of the mobility packages, affecting just a few travel lanes, to show significant "improvements".

Further, since all three westbound I-66 "spot improvements" are part of the baseline, Packages 1 and 2 primarily differ in the eastbound direction only.

Moreover, the computer travel model used generates far less peak-period I-66 auto travel and traffic congestion in the baseline than is realistic, because it ignores the likely rampant SOV and HOV-2 cheating under HOV3+ and does not fully account for all the lawful SOV and HOV-2 travelers.

Finally, the study has not yet reported on any of the negative impacts (e.g., on the Custis/W&OD Trail and on other parkland and public open space) that would result from widening I-66 to six lanes, especially eastbound and in both directions east of Ballston.

The study findings made public to date provide far too little information for a well-informed discussion. For example, the study assumed higher I-66 tolls for Package 1 than for Package 2, although Package 2 would cost
hundreds of million dollars for construction with no identified funding source.

I agree with David Alpert that some combination of Mobility Packages 1 and 4 is the most promising alternative, and I look forward to the completion of this important planning study and for further refinements in a much-needed follow-up study.

by Allen Muchnick on Apr 26, 2012 8:12 pm • linkreport

@Tysons
Hey, I like density as much as the next guy but like it or not, they developed the Dulles Corridor and plenty of high tech industries migrated there and they aren't in a hurry to leave. Like it or not, Ft. Belvoir is also a job center for the region. Does VA want to promote commerce in its own state or not? What I want is for VA to fund an infrastructure corridor connecting Dulles to Belvoir but they don't seem to be thinking that way. Leesburg is well-positioned to serve the Dulles Corridor despite an almost complete lack of transit. It isn't my company's fault that Belvoir is so inaccessible from Leesburg. We're just doing the best we can given the situation. And sometimes the customer doesn't have a ton of choices. We're one of a very small number of groups capable of doing this work. The region's infrastructure is just barely good enough to make it work.

by movement on Apr 26, 2012 8:47 pm • linkreport

As others have stated, the study's CLRP baseline assumptions represent substantial improvements over existing transit conditions and therefore are likely inaccurate. This seems to call for a measured, phased approach that pauses to periodically evaluate impact before moving forward.

There's little question that I-66 widening will be needed at some point. However, I believe this should come AFTER VDOT proves their commitment to a true multimodal "all of the above" strategy given its losing "roads-first" history that has induced unquenchable demand and alienated residents living inside the beltway.

In my opinion, (admittedly nebulous) improvements to bike, ped, ICM, TDM, bus (local, commuter & regional), Metro (Rush +, Silver line completion, 100% 8-car Orange & Silver trains during peak times), and Option 4 (Rte 50 shoulder bus lane) should be done in parallel with I-66 spot improvements 2 and 3. VDOT should also consider spot improvements on I-66 eastbound between Haycock and Glebe to ease merges and facilitate earlier exits.

Waiting to add additional lanes on I-66 until AFTER other improvements have been implemented and their impact studied (or have at least been funded with construction substantially underway) is not only the most cost-effective way to increase the transit capacity of the corridor under study, but will maximize incentives for folks to use metro, buses, bikes, and walk. It will also substantially increase public support for a variant of MM Option 3 (I like the idea of adding a new 24-7 HOT-3 lane in each direction, but keeping existing restrictions as-is on other lanes until conditions warrant further changes).

There's no question that Metro's tunnel capacity issues at Rosslyn will be critical at some point. Regardless, we still need the Orange line extension to Centreville and the VRE extension to Gainsville/Haymarket to take cars off I-66, particularly since DC's capacity to absorb inbound traffic during peak morning commuting hours is arguably more limited than Metro's ability to eventually improve the tunnel situation.

by All of the above on Apr 26, 2012 11:20 pm • linkreport

I have fixed the erroneous graphs. Thanks for pointing it out.

by David Alpert on Apr 27, 2012 7:11 am • linkreport

@ Tysons Engineer

Good to hear from you. Let me try to respond to some points.

Widening of Route 7 outside Tysons. If we are talking from Tysons west, this is a key project supported by the supervisors, except for Hudgins. VDOT has moved it to a priority and has established a group to obtain input from near-by community groups and the Tysons landowners. This group is also looking at transit options that could be part of the project. Moreover, it is now included in Table 7. Added development is tied to its completion.

You are correct that much of the right-of-way for the grid of streets will simply be dedicated by landowners. But the Comp Plan recognizes there will be costs to complete the grid - some ROW will need to be purchased.

The County, especially Ken Lawrence and Walter Alcorn, is working hard to improve pedestrian access and ensuring sufficient bike paths. But all of the studies show SOV is and will continue to be the main form of transportation in and out of Tysons. Development up to 84 million square feet net requires major road improvements. Only after Tysons reaches 84 MSF, do the road improvements stop After that, nothing else can be done. Each new trip must then be a transit trip. Many are skeptical that this can work. But it is a way down the road.

The Tysons Partnership is working regularly with the County and VDOT to plan these transportation improvements. No one is looking at alternatives that do not include major road improvements. Development is tied to them. If they don't happen, the landowners will not be able to build to levels that they seek and need.

I think we'd all agree that a successful Tysons can add large sums to the County's real estate tax proceeds. And, hopefully, those increased revenues can relieve upward pressure on everyone else's tax bill. Density has a number of very positive attributes. But, as with any development, it also imposes costs. Larger buildings hold more workers, residents and shoppers. More people impose more infrastructure costs, most of which must be paid upfront by taxpayers.

The $5.46 billion price tag for transportation improvements, which includes inflation, but not interest or other financing costs, amounts to more than $2 million each and every week between now and 2051. That's more than five cents on Fairfax County's real estate tax rate.
Density at Tysons remains a mixed bag and a substantial challenge.

by tmtfairfax on Apr 27, 2012 9:03 am • linkreport

"After that, nothing else can be done. Each new trip must then be a transit trip. Many are skeptical that this can work. But it is a way down the road."

When I last worked in Tysons, in the late 90s, traffic was already awful (especially PM outbound from Thanksgiving to Christmas). If there had been any halfway decent transit alternative, and it one didn't need a car to get anywhere in Tysons at lunch time, I would gladly have switched to transit. Yet folks say "Tysons and all around it will be gridlocked - yet many or most will still use autos to access it"

One of the mysteries I don't understand - yet our zoning and road investments are tied to it.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 27, 2012 9:47 am • linkreport

@gray

the same system that will be implemented on the beltway hot lanes by the end of this year - you get a special EZpass with a switch - when you are riding in a 3+ person carpool you turn the switch on, and you dont pay - but it also signals (a light?) to law enforcement that you are not paying. If they see you with the switch on, and less than 3 in your car, they stop you.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 27, 2012 9:51 am • linkreport

As an Arlingtonian (yes -- who lives close-in at that e.g Lorcom Lane exit) I'm continually bewildered with seeing HOT lanes as part of any solution. Philosophically (my view only, obviously) gov't works best when it performs things that private can't: e.g. host a standing army, build highways, send a man to the moon. So I'm fine when our taxes go to these kind of infrastructure projects, but am never in favor of additional use taxes. Too often these taxes outlive their intended purpose (for years and years - such as the I-95 tolls in Richmond) long after the capital costs were paid off. Further the lack of accountability is too tempting to gov't. Simply stated, the temptation is too strong to use these 'dedicated' funds to fund any number of other things OTHER than their intended purpose (e.g. going to general fund)... though MD is currently much worse in this than VA in this regard. Basically having a open source of revenue quickly turns into a runaway revenue stream, leading to bloat, inefficiency and corruption. As an Arlington socialist (or whatever I am) I prefer my government lean, hungry, and responsive.

Staving off the inevitable flames, I rarely use I-66 as I bike heavily and I-66 doesn't help my typical commute -- so I'm not going to be directly impacted if I-66 is tolled/widened. Regardless, I'm not in favor of expanding I-66 as increased capacity has ALWAYS resulted in expanded use above and beyond the planned capacity. If you build a road -- they will come (and in droves) leading to even worse congestion than existed previously. This 'law' is well established in study after study, most notably in European countries (e.g. that 'communist' bastion of England) but also here in the U.S. However now, as a 'solution', there is this thought that you can use a few, key roads as a revenue generator(s) and drive commuter behavior. This is a fallacy. While tolls have a significant impact on local commuter behavior (b/c who would ever use I-66 now?) -- the tolls only push traffic to the other free options (e.g. Parkway, 395, Rte 50, local roads). In other words, Tolls don't significantly limit the number of drivers. The people who end up paying the tax are the same commuting fools who have bought houses out Loundon, Leesburg, etc... because they have most to gain (timewise) and a lack of other viable options... and consequentially HAVE TO DRIVE. So commuters, you have the most to lose. You have years of construction, then years of fees (granted with some faster commuting), but ultimately years of fees AND ever growing congestion forever forward. Precisely what you have now, FOR FREE, on I-66. So add your lane, toll it. The irony is that it will only further increase Arlington's land values, and as a home and business owner -- I'm OK with that.

Lastly selling the revenue stream to private companies (such as McQ of Australia) is even more short-sighted and will only exacerbate the cost/congestion as they have a vested interest in maximizing revenue (which Gov't really doesn't) and ensure appropriate queueing/revenue. While this construct may appear to have the appropriate balances (if traffic is bad on I-66, the company/govt will have to build more lanes) in fact the opposite is true. They will charge HIGHER fees, pushing ever more people to arbitrage -- e.g. using the free options.

There is no understanding of the rational actors at play here, and these studies are much too simplistic to ever get it right. Let's face facts, this is a bunch of metrics, some of which are even meaningful and accurate. But they are in no way accurate of portraying the costs, revenues, and most importantly commuting behaviors. Rather they are part of the larger effort to force Arlington to add a lane to I-66. We should just acknowledge that, and call it what it is. If they want to tax those poor souls out in the 'burbs' that's fine with me. I'd rather see major additions to the bike infrastructure (two dedicated lanes on I-66 straight to the Mall) but then I'm an Arlington fascist (or whatever I am). But the advantage is that it would get me and many like me out of my cars, and give the rest of you 'real Americans' ever more elbow room (lebenraum) to drive in. Either way you are going to pay for it.

by ^ is foolish on Apr 27, 2012 10:06 am • linkreport

HOT might work -- if they give Arlingotn residents about 40 free off peak passes.

by charlie on Apr 27, 2012 10:15 am • linkreport

The $5.46 billion price tag for transportation improvements, which includes inflation, but not interest or other financing costs, amounts to more than $2 million each and every week between now and 2051. That's more than five cents on Fairfax County's real estate tax rate.
Density at Tysons remains a mixed bag and a substantial challenge

The only way to evaluate density at Tysons it to look at the alternatives. If the growth was spread throughout the county, rather than concentrated at Tysons, what would be the cost in that scenario? My guess is that it would be more than the Tysons plan and it would end up decreasing the quality of life for residents throughout the county who value the lower level of density they enjoy today. Furthermore, that scenario isn't even realistic because NIMBYism would prevent a lot of the potential growth (which would simply be lost to competitors).

by Falls Church on Apr 27, 2012 10:21 am • linkreport

@charlie

If I-66 HOT Lanes are controlled by the government, the off-peak toll should be low ....maybe $0.00

by mcs on Apr 27, 2012 12:03 pm • linkreport

@ Falls Church

You definitely present a possible alternative. Growth could be spread around the county. No one knows what the costs for additional transportation infrastructure in that case. Your guess is certainly as good as mine.

I also agree that there would be strong opposition to specific projects around the county, which would probably sufficient to stop some, but not all, development.

Additionally, some of the development that might otherwise be built in Tysons would be built in outlying jurisdictions. I suspect a large number of Fairfax County residents would think that would be a good idea. Let others pay for the infrastructure.

by tmtfairfax on Apr 27, 2012 12:20 pm • linkreport

Opt. 4 is the only one I can stomach as proposed.

Opt. 3 i'd accept but with modifications so I'd still add a 3rd lane to I-66 to be HOV-2 but not in the reverse peak, but during peak itself. Off-peak, leave all lanes open to anyone (as they are today). And SOVs could pay a toll to get on the HOV-2 lane during Peak only.

I find Opt. 1 and 2 extremely punitive for SOVs, which, let's be frank, is a majority of drivers in this area.

How many people really HOV-3? Come on now.

by LuvDusty on Apr 27, 2012 12:35 pm • linkreport

@LuvDusty: plenty of them along 95/395, where the HOV lanes already are HOV-3.

by Froggie on Apr 27, 2012 1:11 pm • linkreport

@ LuvDusty

Packages 1 and 2 would BENEFIT, not punish, SOV drivers because they would a) provide access to free-flowing I-66 travel lanes during the hours of HOV3+ restrictions, and 2) reduce traffic congestion on parallel arterial routes (e.g., 50 and 29) by diverting some SOV drivers onto I-66.

With Package 1, however, the tolls could be lower than for Package 2 and/or limited in duration to the hours of HOV restrictions, because the tolls would not be needed to finance any widening of I-66.

Package 3, with some form of managed and unmanaged lanes operating in the same direction would be operationally problematic (unsafe) due to the likely high speed differentials between the adjacent travel lanes.

Package 4 has not been clearly presented, could be developed in varied ways, and contains elements with diverse cost/benefit ratios. Rte 50 itself is not an optimal bus transit corridor because it does not directly serve many regional activity centers inside the Beltway except for Rosslyn and downtown DC. If Rte 50 were upgraded to an expressway or freeway with fewer (or no) at-grade intersections, the capacity of each Rte 50 travel lane could nearly double. Also, there is limited Rte 50 right-of-way in Arlington to add bus-only shoulders.

It make sense to me to adopt Package 1 in the short term and dedicate the toll revenue to implement the desired but UNFUNDED bus service and TDM measures in the CLRP-Plus BASELINE plus some of the bus service additions and Rte 50 upgrades proposed under Package 4. I *might* also support making true spot improvements to I-66 to eliminate short choke points, such as the new westbound bottleneck at Sycamore St.

by Allen Muchnick on Apr 27, 2012 1:28 pm • linkreport

There is a case pending before the Federal Ciruit Court of Appeals, Corr v MWAA, that could possibly affect the ability to impose tolls that are diverted to other uses, such as transit. The suit argues MWAA only has the legal power to levy user fees for the airports and cannot levy anything in the nature of a tax because of its unaccountability to any electors and because the interstate compact establishing it gives it no taxing powers. It is expected the case will be argued late this summer or this fall.

by tmtfairfax on Apr 27, 2012 2:06 pm • linkreport

@Allen: Not sure how adding a toll that is not there currently is a benefit to SOV drivers or HOV-2? And from what I can tell, this toll would be enforced 24hrs a day, not just during rush. Or am I misreading?

If you are an SOV or HOV-2 vehicle currently using I-66, if option 1 is implemented, suddently you are paying a toll. I don't see the benefit there at all.

You are assuming people will gladly pay for the access, I disagree. I-66 will be jam packed from all the buses and HOV-3s that everyone says are on the road, and since it hasn't been widened, it won't improve anything for SOV or HOV-2, except now they have to pay a toll.

by LuvDusty on Apr 27, 2012 2:09 pm • linkreport

@AWalkerInTheCity: Thanks! I assumed there was a system along those lines for the HOT lanes. I wonder if that will actually work in practice.

Oh, and to address your observation about Tysons: I live in Rosslyn and commute to Tysons, and unless I'm planning to do both directions outside peak hours, it's worth it to me to use the (not so great) transit option. For me that means metro to WFC, then a bus, but as much of a pain as the transfer is, in general it's more dependable than driving at, say, 8:30 AM or 5:00 PM.

I'm hoping that there will be zipcars in Tysons as soon as the metro opens, to address your lunchtime concern.

by Gray on Apr 27, 2012 2:21 pm • linkreport

"unaccountability to any electors "

so based on that, a Federal COURT will effectively sink a project supported by the elected board of supervisors of Fairfax County.

Wow. Irony lives.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 27, 2012 2:36 pm • linkreport

LD

"If you are an SOV or HOV-2 vehicle currently using I-66, if option 1 is implemented, suddently you are paying a tll. I don't see the benefit there at all."

If you are SOV using I66 at rush hour now, you are violating the law and are subject to a very considerable fine.

You are only hurt if you are SOV off peak. The off peak tolls probably will not be very high.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 27, 2012 2:38 pm • linkreport

I don't see how any of these scenarios deal with the problem of people either avoiding or being pushed off of 66 onto Arlington surface streets. If they are indeed HOT lanes, there are enough SOV drivers that will gladly pay a pricey toll for an unencumbered trip to DC. At some price point former HOV-2 drivers will end up taking 50/Lee/Wash Blvd instead. And HOV-3, that would just take it up a notch.

Honestly, if they only do a couple of fixes, traffic wouldn't really be that bad with the current HOV-2 and the expiration of the hybrid exemption. The most important being a better 4 lane to 2 lane scenario from the DTR merge eastbound..

by Fred on Apr 27, 2012 2:39 pm • linkreport

I second what Fred just said.

@Walker: I knew that, I was talking precisely about non-rush. So SOVs during non-rush pay a toll under Opt. 1 and 2? WTF? No thanks. I never go on I-66 during rush in my SOV, but DO use I-66 often during non-peak hours, particularly in the evenings.

Having to suddenly pay a toll will not benefit me in the least.

My main point is that I don't think any of those options will really address the problems. Fred is correct in his assessment in my view.

by LuvDusty on Apr 27, 2012 3:33 pm • linkreport

@ LuvDusty,

I've already explained above that congestion-priced, variable electronic tolling of I-66 would benefit SOV drivers by a) providing legal access to an "uncongested" highway that they were previously banned from using (during the hours of HOV restrictions) and b) by reducing traffic congestion on parallel highways which would remain toll free. In fact, the study says that current HOV3+ travelers would suffer the most under Packages 1 and 2 because their travel speeds during the HOV hours would be reduced from ca 60 MPH to about 45 MPH (to maximize vehicle throughput and minimize the toll prices on I-66).

The modeled I-66 tolling was congestion pricing, meaning that the tolls could be $0.00 whenever the volume of vehicular traffic should not cause travel speeds to drop below 45 MPH. While that should mean that travel on I-66 should remain free most of the day (24/7), the study also conducted a "sensitivity test" in which the Package 1 tolls were applied only during HOV hours. According to the study presentation, this modification "also helped address the study goals. The congestion in the peak periods was reduced similar to Multimodal Package 1. During off-peak periods usage remained similar to the year 2040 Baseline, and higher than in Package 1."

When the HOV occupancy restrictions on I-66 were reduced from HOV3+ to HOV2+ around 1995, VDOT agreed to frequently monitor and report on I-66 HOV traffic volumes and speeds and to restore HOV3+ if congestion occurs regularly under HOV2+. Thus, the study baseline assumes that HOV3+ would become effective by 2040, and most HOV-2 vehicles would also be banned during the HOV restrictions.

Under the study's 2040 baseline assumptions and modeling techniques (both of which are seriously flawed), I-66 would be significantly UNDER capacity in 2040 during HOV3+ conditions. Regardless, there would NEVER be enough bus and HOV3+ travel on a 4-lane (2 lanes each way) I-66 to create traffic congestion (except after a traffic incident and during a special evacuation exercise). Unlike the I-95/I-395 corridor, I-66 has Metrorail in its median and lacks slug lines and excess park-and-ride capacity for ridesharing.

An inherent problem with the I-66 HOV restrictions is the difficultly of preventing cheating plus the many legal SOV exceptions. Conversion to HOT would effectively solve those problems, move more vehicles on I-66, and improve mobility for SOV drivers who either willingly pay for fast travel on I-66 or opt for toll-free travel on parallel highways which now carry less traffic. In reality, HOV3+ and bus travel on I-66 would be faster, not slower, with HOT because the many SOV and HOV-2 drivers would either travel elsewhere or pay a toll. Furthermore, if I-66 were managed in both directions during peak periods, more people would use transit or ridesharing in the "reverse commute" direction.

The current I-66 Multimodal Study is merely a macro-level, broad-brush planning study that seeks to identify promising alternatives for a future, more detailed study (or series of studies).

A clear conclusion from the current study's analyses of Mobility Options was that widening I-66 to just three lanes each way WITHOUT managing vehicular travel demand (with either tolls or HOV restrictions) would be counterproductive for regional mobility, without even considering construction costs and delays and adverse community impacts.

by Allen Muchnick on Apr 27, 2012 3:43 pm • linkreport

@ Fred,

Proposed solutions for the eastbound bottleneck at the I-66 and Dulles Connector Road merge *ought* to be part of the current study. While the study team is well aware of this bottleneck, they've lacked the resources and/or focus to examine this problem in any detail.

I suggest that folks note the need to fix this bottleneck in written comments to info AT i66multimodalstudy DOT com.

Another issue that the study has largely ignored is how to optimize the I-66 HOV hours and occupancy restrictions, as an alternative to tolling the highway. The study only looked at Mobility Options with HOV2+ in the "reverse commute" direction for the *entire* peak travel period, and this was found to be counterproductive.

by Allen Muchnick on Apr 27, 2012 4:12 pm • linkreport

@ Fred,

"I don't see how any of these scenarios deal with the problem of people either avoiding or being pushed off of 66 onto Arlington surface streets."

The study has looked extensively at traffic volumes and congestion, on parallel arterial roads as well as I-66, under the baseline and under each of the "Mobility Packages". These results were excluded from the recent study presentation and at the public meetings, but they should be presented in the final report due out in June.

Under the 2040 study baseline, with HOV3+ restrictions in the peak direction, traffic diversion from I-66 is greatest. All four of the "Mobility Packages" would reduce traffic on the parallel arterials compared to the baseline.

"Honestly, if they only do a couple of fixes, traffic wouldn't really be that bad with the current HOV-2 and the expiration of the hybrid exemption."

I generally agree, but our region's 2040 CLRP assumes that I-66 will have HOV3+ restrictions, so that was used for the baseline. An increase from HOV2+ to HOV3+ would only be needed for conversion to HOT, and this would be consistent with the I-495 Express Lanes, the current I-395 and I-95 HOV lanes, and the future I-95 HOT lanes.

by Allen Muchnick on Apr 27, 2012 4:56 pm • linkreport

@Allen:

Though I-66 lacks slug lines now, I suspect that if VDOT were to increase it to HOV-3, that would be motivation for a push to add slug lines along the corridor.

by Froggie on Apr 28, 2012 8:29 am • linkreport

David Alpert's observation hits the nail on the head:

"It would have been more helpful for laypeople if we could also compare each alternative to what would happen if VDOT didn't build the "spot improvements" and didn't change to HOV-3. In fact, an initial impetus for this study was to find out whether the spot improvements are a good idea in the first place, or whether other options would work better."

I agree. What is the sense of comparing alternatives to a 2040 baseline that doesn't even exist except on paper? This is totally illogical. The 2005 I-66 Inside the Beltway Feasibility Study--which VDOT removed from its website--compared alternatives--including the 2030 CLRP--with the existing 2005 baseline. Likewise VDOT should compare its proposed packages with conditions on the ground in 2012, as well as the 2040 CLRP.

I also agree that since the purpose of the multimodal study was to evaluate alternatives, and since spot improvements #2 and #3 are alternatives, they should not be assumed. They should be evaluated. Given the defects in VDOT's methodology, I disagree with Alpert's conclusion that it "seems unlikely that they [VDOT] would recommend widening I-66 given these results."

VDOT is going to do whatever is politically expedient, as it maintains control of the Commonwealth's elected officials by catering to their needs. The principal need of NOVA elected officials is to appease at least a half million SOVs in Fairfax and Loudoun County, who will defend to the death their right to sit parked on I-66, and Routes 7, 29 and 50 during peak hours on weekdays and all day on weekends.

by Audrey Clement on Apr 28, 2012 8:40 am • linkreport

Is doing or not doing the spot improvements still undecided? usually a "no build" case is supposed to include already decided on improvements. If no build did not include the spot improvements, but say the added lane option did, that would give the added lane option any benefits associated witht the spot improvements.

This study, though in its early stages, seems to lean strongly in favor of NOT adding lots of highway asphalt, and using pricing, carpooling and transit. At this stage I don't find VDOT to be "unprogressive" on this.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 28, 2012 8:55 am • linkreport

Audrey wrote: "The 2005 I-66 Inside the Beltway Feasibility Study--which VDOT removed from its website--"

You mean this study?

by Froggie on Apr 28, 2012 8:08 pm • linkreport

The purpose of the I-66 multimodal corridor study was to evaluate alternative solutions to congestion on I-66--including Spot Improvements #2 and #3. By placing Spot Improvements #2 and #3 in the 2040 CLRP baseline, as assumptions rather than solutions, VDOT has obviated the need to evaluate them, as David Alpert presciently pointed out.

In this way VDOT has done an end run around Arlington County Board member Chris Zimmerman, who demanded the current multimodal corridor study in exchange for construction of Spot #1. There is no doubt that VDOT has won yet another round, and the only hope for those who espouse rational highway planning is further litigation.

Froggie, in answer to your question, the 2005 I-66 Inside the Beltway Feasibility Study was an earlier study commissioned by then Governor Mark Warner to evaluate solutions to congestion on I-66. It properly assumed current conditions as the baseline not conditions some 30 years into the future.

by Audrey Clement on Apr 30, 2012 8:39 am • linkreport

As a former resident of the area and sometimes visitor of the area I would like to point out that at some point adding lanes doesn't solve the problem because they all narrow down again.

IMHO HOV2 is a joke. 2 is not high occupancy. Make them HOV-3 and set-up a commuter bus system on a realistic schedule at a NOMINAL FARE so that it makes it worthwhile for the daily commuter to take the bus.

We heavily subsidize car traffic by building more roads and it never works. We expect people to take the Metro or commuter train (where available)and it hasn't worked. Try making that means cheap, cheap for two years and see if people have enough sense to make it work. If NOT, don't expect things to get better. When you build I-66 wider further out people just move further out.

by Ted Duke on May 1, 2012 7:53 am • linkreport

@Allen: I've never believed myself to be a genius, but I'm also not stupid. I've now read your 7 paragraph explanation on why it would be beneficial to SOV three times, and I still don't understand what you wrote.

I don't see any worthwhile benefit to SOV drivers who use I-66 off-peak.

In any case, the point is to solve the peak hours congestion I guess, so it really doesn't matter what I think or what SOV drivers do.

But I stand firm in my conviction that until it's cheaper and more convenient to take Metro or a bus, people will still drive.

by LuvDusty on May 1, 2012 5:26 pm • linkreport


ride a bike.

there is no saving of the current transportation (sic) system; it doesnt work. it's for losers and cowards and the uneducated.

by Mike on May 2, 2012 3:54 pm • linkreport

A month late here, but just now learning about this. I've reviewed the summary materials on the VDOT website, but are there details of the lane widening plans available? I live in a part of Falls Church that would probably be impacted by this, and neither my family, nor my neighbors, are aware that a recommendation for widening was a real/likely option again.

by Falls Church on Jun 2, 2012 8:52 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us