Roads
Roger Lewis endorses three Beltways?
Washington Post Shaping the City columnist and UMD architecture professor emeritus Roger Lewis usually makes a valuable contribution to debates about our region. He supports less sprawling development patterns, plans to make Tysons a "real city", and the Purple Line. That's why I was shocked to hear him recommend not just completing the ICC, but three Beltways for the Washington area during today's Kojo Nnamdi show:
We don't want to be like Houston. From Blueprint for a Better Region.
The ICC is intended to create part of a larger network. I mean we've talked about how we really want a lattice system. Ideally what we should have in the metro Washington region is something that looks like a cobweb. We have the radials, we've got one of the circumferentials, we probably need three of them.You can hear it for yourself at 35:33 here.My hometown of Houston, they already built the second beltway. There's an inner loop and now there's an outer loop. The ICC is envisioned, I think, as a fragment, as a beginning of what might be in 100 years be a completed network where you can move circumferentially, or east-west, north-south as easily as you can move radially along the roads that vector out from the city. I think the Purple Line is also part of this. [Emphasis added]
Does Lewis really mean what he said today? Houston's beltways have created and cemented the sprawl that Lewis criticizes in his own columns. It's generated stifling commutes, destroyed millions of acres of open space, damaged the environment, and made us completely dependent on petroleum. Plus, we've learned over the last 50 years that building new freeways doesn't relieve traffic, it just induces more. More beltways would make our current problems ten times worse.
Purple Line advocates often talk about the value of making our transit system a network, lattice, or cobweb, instead of just a hub-and-spoke system, the phrases Lewis was repeating. Today, it's impossible to go from Silver Spring to Bethesda to Tysons by rail, depriving many of a real transit alternative to driving. Lewis has himself explained this wisdom on past shows using those terms. But highways aren't the same. We already have the lattice or cobweb in the form of our streets. In fact, really building a good cobweb involves providing many parallel roads instead of just one.
Lewis talked about completing a system. Not all systems are created equal. Earlier in the show, they discussed the last century's "freeway revolts", where citizens rose up against completing the freeway system because they'd realized that having that system was not the right direction for our metropolitan areas. The ICC is indeed part of a system, but an extremely dangerous, destructive, and foolhardy system.
Does Lewis really believe "we probably need three [beltways]"? Say it ain't so, Roger!
 | 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
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
David: Washington Post Shaping the City columnist and UMD architecture professor emeritus Roger Lewis usually makes a valuable contribution to debates about our region
David, why is his contribution not valuable when it's not what you expected to hear him say? The fact that it isn't what you expected to hear, possibly makes it one of the most valuable things you will hear from this guy.
We can't go back to the 19th century. What is, is. We can fight to get livable/walkable cities back, but that doesn't mean the only way to do it is to revert to 'old ways'. We can indeed keep the advantages of the present AND get back the good things we lost along the way.
by Lance on Dec 22, 2008 6:24 pm • link • report
Anyway, for god's sake, why in the world would we want to be more like Houston. And why in the world would anyone want to spend billions on the THIRD ring beltway. I can understand why people think the Techway (btwn Gaithersburg and Dulles) is a good idea, even if I disagree, but that far-western highway is just absolutely stupid. Look at the graphic in the upper right of this blog post. See how there are no local roads around the proposed highway on the far west? If that highway were built, all that white empty land would be developed, and all those people would instantly clog that highway.
A better illustration of how highways induce traffic is hard to imagine.
by BeyondDC on Dec 22, 2008 6:58 pm • link • report
What about the major gap from Route 50 counter clock wise to I-395 (or between the BW and GW parkways) within the Beltway?
Why a second outer beltway and no mention of completing the Inner Loop as a primarily underground system, such as done in Sweden?
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 22, 2008 6:59 pm • link • report
by Steve on Dec 22, 2008 7:42 pm • link • report
I'm not pro-beltway, I'm just asking.
by spookiness on Dec 22, 2008 7:49 pm • link • report
Lance, futurama as envisioned by GM in 1939 was/is not progress. It's a horrible mistake. We created a monster. As you read in my post about the dramatic increase in the price of asphalt a few weeks ago, it appears that we won't be able to feed it much longer.
Just because it's what has been the norm and has sort of worked for the past 50 years does not mean GM's vision of futurama is still sustainable or desirable.
by Cavan on Dec 22, 2008 10:30 pm • link • report
What we got was choice and more affordable housing, even as we foolishy embarked upon wholesale surrendering electric transit (I say this as more of a fan of electric motivation rather then tracks in the streets). Lance is right that we can have both, however I must take issue with this outer outer outer stuff prioritization: I favor an outer beltway, but 2 outer beltways without doing the innermost beltway and the NCF radial is IMHO foolishness.
Also, if you want more transit, we'll need more linear city - denser development like that in Paris, with NY Avenue NE, MD 355 and MD and Virginia Route 1 as good candidates.
Your right to a degree but what has DC done by continuing to virtually ignore the highways while expecting a different result? What DC does is push t away and maintain a disproportionate amount of the through burden in Anacostia SE.
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 22, 2008 11:39 pm • link • report
I kind of wonder if he said it just to see who'd turn their nose up in disgust.
by dan reed on Dec 22, 2008 11:46 pm • link • report
by alexandrian on Dec 22, 2008 11:55 pm • link • report
by monkeyrotica on Dec 23, 2008 6:17 am • link • report
You mean like how we keep giving WMATA more money and expecting them to fix the flooding tunnels, track fires, busted escalators, ignorant station managers...?
by monkeyrotica on Dec 23, 2008 6:22 am • link • report
by Vik on Dec 23, 2008 6:49 am • link • report
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/12/1950-62-plans.html
Portions of it were sensible canceled and redesigned, most notably the I-66 North Leg and I-295 East Leg:
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-66-north-leg-west-k-street-tunnel.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-295-east-leg-to-east-capitol-street_17.html
IMHO the East Leg redesign needed further work such as with a lid with a waterfront promenade - terrace, and the North Leg needed some reworking in the Center Leg interchange areas as I redesigned here:
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-395-extension-superior-option.html
These were canceled because of an unwillingness of an 'intelligentsia' to see automobility beyond petroleum (sort of like opposing new housing because it requires oil to run the heating systems), and advance its construction by a few months as a distraction from WMATA book-keeping and Pentagon-Pentagram war budget bloat (to keep the 'progressives' distracted from the larger picture).
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/02/doctrinaire-anti-new-highways-position.html
Note that the letter was signed by Elizabeth Rowe of US NCPC who had been an early promoter of the I-66 K Street Tunnel!
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 23, 2008 10:14 am • link • report
by NikolasM on Dec 23, 2008 10:17 am • link • report
Houston grew by population some 25 percent in the 1990s, making it one of the fastest growing cities in America.
So you may not like the way it looks, but the millions of people who live there do. They also like economic growth an opportunity that comes with having a city that can expand and change to meet a changing world. It's fortunate that it didn't have urban planners acting as tastemakers telling the city how it should be run.
Further, look at how Houston handled Hurricane Ike and before that, the evacuees from Katrina. That's the result of a vibrant, well-run city -- not one run by self-appointed experts.
De gustibus non es disputandum.
by Dan on Dec 23, 2008 1:04 pm • link • report
There is also the possibility that many of the people who live in, and have moved to, Houston don't really know of any other way for a city to be constructed. Without alternatives Houston may seem beautiful. Of course, they might just like all the freeways and sprawl, in which case I'll remember to stay away from Houston.
by Chris on Dec 23, 2008 1:25 pm • link • report
And sorry, Dan, but we're better off long-term with slower, carefully regulated growth than explosive sprawl that destroys increasingly valuable natural resources.
by Adam on Dec 23, 2008 1:29 pm • link • report
And how will Houston fare when gas is $4/gallon again? What about when it's $7/gallon, or $10/gallon?
The fact is, Houston's growth is unsustainable and unhealthy. It's the urban equivalent of a 400 pound fatso who eats McDonalds for every meal. The guy may love how McDonalds tastes, but sooner or later it's going to bite him back.
You're more than welcome to dismiss the opinion of educated planning professionals in the same way fatso is more than welcome to dismiss the opinion of his doctors, but there *are* good reasons why the educated professionals think the way they do.
The Houston model will reap big benefits in the near term and disaster in the long.
by BeyondDC on Dec 23, 2008 1:31 pm • link • report
I'm all for proper planning, and wouldn't want to live in Houston, but I wouldn't go so far as condemning it to 'disaster in the long." Didn't most of the world's great cities start off like this? Some like Paris had planning come in after the fact (and some didn't, like London), but no one can deny that it was the unbridled growth during early periods that made them the powers they are. Would Washington be larger and more vibrant now had not planning been so essential to its creating and development? Yes ... and Roslynn would still be the unbridled 'saloon town' it was till the 60s ... if anyone could build anything they wanted in DC. But instead we have a city developing as a monumental (and serene) core to a bustling region. It's all a matter of tradeoffs. Like people, different cities want different things for themselves. It doesn't make one better or worse than another ... Just different. And if what your city wants isn't what you want, there's always the option of finding a city that does want what you want.
by Lance on Dec 23, 2008 1:48 pm • link • report
Not all growth is equal. Form matters. Car-dependent sprawl has great short term benefits but will hurt you bad in the long term.
We have been putting all this car-dependent sprawl on our credit card for sixty years. Now the bill is starting to come due in the form of a dearth of affordable housing near jobs, obesity, oil addiction, climate change, loneliness/depression, and more road infrastructure than we can afford to maintain.
When you can't pay the bills you've got, it's important to stop borrowing. Houston and every other sprawl-ville will learn this lesson the hard way, I'm afraid. Now that subdivision construction has dried up, what's left of the economy of California's "inland empire" (in truth, desert land)? How about Phoenix? Las Vegas? What will become of Houston's economy once oil resumes its price increases?
We're entering a new paradigm in human history. We're no longer conquering the frontier. We're now on a spaceship. Resources are now precious rather than plentiful. We have to manage ourselves and our systems rather than just grabbing all the gusto we can. Car-dependent sprawl is sacrificing everything for convenience: grab all the gusto you can. This has to stop or else those of us who are in the younger generation are going to live our adult lives with a much lower standard of living. And our kids/grandkids will be even lower.
by Cavan on Dec 23, 2008 2:05 pm • link • report
Lance, I take it you're moving to Detroit? Lots of roads, free parking for everyone, no new development.
by tt on Dec 23, 2008 2:05 pm • link • report
by Vik on Dec 23, 2008 2:32 pm • link • report
You haven't really fallen for the 'we're running out of resources" bit, have you? This is a canard that has been around for a long long time ... and every generation thinks they've come in 'just after the last frontier has been conquered.' The truth is that there will always be a new frontier to conquer and since it's 'energy' we use to do things (and the form of that energy can be any of thousands of things), there will never be a shortage of it. Run out of oil? (Which is very likely to happen in the first place ...) Then switch to solar or wind or nuclear or whatever. There's nothing new going on here that your generation has suddenly discovered.
by Lance on Dec 23, 2008 2:52 pm • link • report
But isn't that exactly what you're selling? Making cities dependent on mass transit MACHINES for survival?
Cities grew around the intersections of commerce driven by ROADS. Google "Champagne fairs." These are roads that were laid by the Romans, built on during Medieval times, expanded during the Renaissance, paved into autobahns, and will probably be around for another couple hundred years. Roads aren't going anywhere any time soon.
But that doesn't mean we need to keep building stupid roads (more urban highways).
by monkeyrotica on Dec 23, 2008 3:06 pm • link • report
I mean sure, I'm all for it. We definitely should colonize Mars.
How's that going to help Houston when gas gets expensive, again?
by BeyondDC on Dec 23, 2008 3:32 pm • link • report
In this city, right now, it's the H St. NE corridor ... and maybe SE?
by Lance on Dec 24, 2008 12:19 am • link • report
As someone who cautiously supports some highway development, I would most certainly rather see SOME real highways constructed in lieu of scores of quasi-highways popping up... you know, the New York Avenues, that sort of thing.
I live in PG County, and though the Beltway, I-95, and MD-295 are the only *official* freeways, Central Avenue, US301, Landover Road, Suitland Parkway, Pennsylvania Av, Branch Av, and a bunch of other roads are half-assed highways, which in my opinion is much worse; partially because of their prevalence (12 half-highways instead of 1 real highway) and partly because of the way they seep into communities and destroy any chance of getting around without a car.
I doubt they would, but if new highways can promise Central Avenue becomes an AVENUE and not a half-assed freeway, and a few others along with it, I'm all for it (cost permitting, as well)
by Dave Murphy on Dec 24, 2008 3:52 am • link • report
The freeway makes it easier to drive somewhere. The extra traffic induced by the convenience justifies the road builder's sentiment that the surface road needs more and more and more lanes. Before you know it, you get Central Avenue. Although in truth, Central Avenue was built that way from the beginning.
Without the freeway, there is no justification to constructing a traffic sewer like US 301 between Bowie and the bridge over the Potomac. Sadly, in practice, the lack of traffic never stopped anyone before.
by Cavan on Dec 24, 2008 9:26 am • link • report
Fair enough. I suspect Cavan meant something else with his use of the word, though. I don't mean to speak for him, but in my mind, I read that as "we can no longer just abandon the places we've come from and move on to someplace new, as we have frequently done in the past, because there are no remaining new places that haven't already been lived in".
If H Street is the next frontier, and I agree that it is, that means people are going to be reinvesting in the old city, not founding a new city out in the desert.
>full freeways generate what you call half-assed freeways. You can't have one without the other
Agreed. The reason we have half-assed highways in the first place is that in a transportation paradigm that requires large numbers of people to drive everywhere for everything, half-assed highways are the only way anybody can afford to build enough lanes to get everyone around.
The more urban highways we build, the more we make it easier to drive and harder to walk/bike/transit, which means more people will drive, which means we'll have to build a bunch of Fairfax County Parkways and NY Avenues to serve them.
by BeyondDC on Dec 24, 2008 11:33 am • link • report
by Cavan on Dec 24, 2008 11:51 am • link • report
It's growth is somewhat overstated. Houston, and all Texas cities, can "grow" by annexing other areas around it against their will. So, much of that growth is the result of spreading out.
Saying that people like it because they're making money is like what my dad used to say when we'd complain that the refinery smells bad "Smells like money to me." No, it smells like rotten eggs. Certainly you can make money while building cities that don't harm the environment of public health.
by David C on Dec 26, 2008 1:22 pm • link • report
"we can no longer just abandon the places we've come from and move on to someplace new, as we have frequently done in the past, because there are no remaining new places that haven't already been lived in".
brought to mind an illustration I saw in a magazine some 30 years ago ... back when "population explosion" and the threat of "overpopulation" were hot topics ... in the first frame you see a zoom-in of a guy and his wife in their car and he's turning to her and saying 'Honey, I read that we could have 300 million people living in this country by the year 2000. Where are we going to put all those tens of millions of extra people?!?!?' In the next frame, you see a zoom-out of the vehicle and it is driving in a valley between mountains ... and it is the ONLY car in an area that must encompass hundreds and hundreds of square miles ... there's a sign post reading 'Mojave Desert' ... and the wife answers: 'I don't know honey'.
It was a very poignant illustration. But seeing you write something which your parents (or grandparents?) may have written before you was even more poignant. It's funny how the same unfounded fears repeat themselves from generation to generation. If you really don't think there are any places left 'that haven't already been lived in', then haven't traveled much. But I suspect that is not the case. You're just not giving much thought to all those new places you HAVE seen that WILL someday be 'new cities' to new people. (E.g. Only a century ago Los Angeles barely existed ... it was a tiny insignificant village ... It's today the country's 2nd largest city. A century ago Las Vegas was yet to be born .... It's today's fastest growing city.)
by Lance on Dec 27, 2008 1:43 am • link • report
Fears of overpopulation are not unfounded. There is some maximum population the Earth can sustain. And then below that is a maximum population the Earth can sustain comfortably. Not knowing those numbers does not make people wrong that they exist.
Already we're seeing the impacts of overpopulation. Fish populations worldwide are disappearing due to overfishing. The Chesapeake Bay is dying due to runoff from the development of the watershed. Wars are being fought over limited resources. We're being warned about a power grid that can't supply the countries future power needs. Certainly global warming is worse because we need to supply power, food and other resources to several billion people Aqueducts worldwide are dropping.
Or do you disagree? Do you believe that we can find technology that would allow us to feed 40 billion people here on Earth? The green revolution in food was based on using petroleum and fertilizer, resources we're quickly running through. Modern farming has involved dumping phosphorus into our water and methane into our air. This can't be sustained.
by David C on Dec 27, 2008 6:09 pm • link • report
The carrying capacity of a system is determined in part by the technology of that system. We've been talking about overpopulation for a long time because for a long time our technology has been just barely ahead of the curve. Now that oil is getting more expensive and top soil layers that took millenia to build up are getting depleted, it seems likely that our technology may not be able to keep up much longer. We've been teetering on the brink for a century. It's possible we're about to fall off.
But that's almost besides the point. There are many good social and economic reasons why we don't want to be like Houston. All cities in the world shouldn't be like Houston, even if it were possible.
by BeyondDC on Dec 28, 2008 9:00 pm • link • report
Exactly. In most of those "old" cities, there was a very well defined border: the city walls/moats. For safety, you wanted to live within the city walls, even if your farm land was outside. City walls were not easy to build (just like beltways) and hence they prevented sprawl, and forced density. The only limitation on that density was fire safety.
by Jasper on Oct 5, 2009 12:23 pm • link • report
Add a Comment