Greater Greater Washington

Prince George's transportation plan, part 1: More sidewalks, more roads

Traffic mounts up on Prince George's County highways. Transit stations experience neglect and underuse. Pedestrian injuries and fatalities rank among the highest the region. Amid these growing needs and problems, county planners have released their Preliminary Countywide Master Plan of Transportation. This plan takes some major steps toward improving notoriously bad conditions for pedestrians and bicycles, and toward better transit. However, it also perpetuates the county's focus on development and new roads at the greenfield edge of the county over infill sites inside the Beltway.


New facilities at Prince George's Plaza Metro. Photo by Iwantamonkey on Flickr.

Prince George's County houses a wide range of people and facilities with an utterly unique set of demographics. For example, it the most populous and wealthiest majority African-American county in America. Residents commute not only to DC, but also Baltimore and Annapolis. Four interstate highways, three Metro lines, two MARC lines, and AMTRAK serve the county, as well as state, county, and regional bus lines. Nonetheless, traffic is notoriously brutal and walking along major corridors often involves risking life and limb. When cars hit pedestrians, pedestrian dies one out of every 16 times in Prince George's County, the highest rate in the region. In contrast, only one out of every 48 crashes is fatal in DC. Virtually all of Prince George's mass-transit stations are car-oriented and hostile to pedestrians.

The plan's goals give the impression that planners have gotten far more serious about walking and biking as modes of transportation, not just leisure activities enjoyed on sunny weekends. It identifies 190 pedestrian and bicycle facilities for construction or improvement. And the very first policy of the plan is to incorporate pedestrian-oriented facilities and TOD in new development. However, the plan segregates pedestrian improvements into their own section. Critics charge that this may place walkers and bikers on the back burner to cars unless there is strong advocacy. They recommend a "complete streets" policy forcing new roads to accommodate all modes, rather than independent pedestrian facilities on some roads.

The plan includes many new roads and highways, especially new arterials around Konterra and the very suburban southern and eastern parts of the county. Konterra includes two new interchanges at I-95, but apparently these interchanges will not be constructed as the land-efficient SPUI. I'm generally comfortable with the roads planned there so long as efficient development, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are constructed along with them. I'm not terribly optimistic though.

In a major improvement over previous iterations of the plan, the county has deleted the ICC Extended route. That would have continued the costly freeway beyond its currently planned terminus at US-1 in Beltsville. But instead, the plan proposes new lanes on MD-197 between Laurel and Bowie (blue in the map below) and "freeway facility implementations" on Crain Highway (green). This just continues the "outer Beltway" concept in another form, though by adding grade-separated interchanges on existing roads instead of entirely new construction. Currently, no plans exist to connect the ICC terminus (blue marker) and MD-197, but there is a right-of-way along the PEPCO lines (red) that would make it rather easy to connect the two between Route 1 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway:

The freeway "improvements" to Crain Highway (green) span the entire length of the road in the County, from the Patuxent River to Brandywine. There is even a corridor being studied to extend the freeway southeast from Brandywine (red), furthering the "Outer Beltway" effect. A Potomac crossing in Charles County could connect to the Fairfax County Parkway, and then the only major leg missing from such a Beltway would be the Techway from Loudon County to western Montgomery County, which Virginia still hasn't deleted from the books. It's discouraging to see proposals to turn roads into highways, especially on Crain Highway, which runs through areas of particularly low density.

The county has started to addres issues with its Adequate Public Facilities (APF) law. That requires developers to build "adequate" transportation infrastructure when planning new development, but the current standards only require "adequate" road capacity, not pedestrian, bicycle or transit infrastructure. Though well intended, the law has encouraged sprawl by constructing high-capacity suburban-style thoroughfares, assuring any subsequent development will be car-oriented in nature.

Chapter VII introduces a concept used in Florida of "conceptual mobility enhancement alternatives" (CMEAs) that limit additional traffic lanes on roads and consider transit alternatives and HOV only facilites. The policy also monitors the percentage of land devoted for transportation relative to the development, levying hefty taxes for inefficient road construction.

Like other aspects of County policy, the plan focuses on development in the Developing Tier. Many of the new facilities are greenfield developments on the fringes outside the Beltway. Konterra, Westphalia, Largo, Seabrook, Bowie, and Brandywine receive too much attention compared to possible infill sites such as Forest Heights, Bladensburg, District Heights, Morningside, Forestville, and Chillum. Instead of suburbanizing the rural fringes of Prince George's and potentially affecting the fragile Patuxent and Potomac watersheds, the County should maximize the potential of the inner areas. Otherwise, sprawl mitigation verbage in the plan is just lip service.

This study treats roads, pedestrian paths, and bike lanes as individual facilities, rather than thinking about the road network as a whole. It doesn't specifically address overall street connectivity. And it puts far too much focus on exurban communities while not proposing enough infill projects inside the Beltway. But overall, Prince George's County appears to be evolving in its approach to transportation and recognizing the merits of improving pedestrian safety and transit access in addition to automobility. The county's potential as the keystone gateway between Washington, Baltimore, and Annapolis depends on quality transportation. If the County succeeds, the entire region will benefit greatly.

Coming up in part two: the Master Plan of Transportation's plans for transit in Prince George's.

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Dave Murphy is a Geographic Analyst for the Department of Defense and a US Army veteran. He is also a part time bouncer. He was born in Foggy Bottom and is a lifelong resident of the DC area. He currently resides in the Eckington neighborhood of Northeast. 

Comments

Add a comment »

The good: Prince George's gets that cars are not the only way to get around.

The bad: they have no idea what that means or how to implement it.

That sounds typical across the nation.

by Cavan on Jan 30, 2009 3:22 pm • linkreport

David-

What type of "freeway facility implementations" on Crain Highway are envisioned?

I favor such with the proper design, e.g. depressing the mainline rather then elevating it like Route 5.

Converting most or all of the existing 301 to a freeway to me always made a lot more sense then an all new alignment.

Of course I feel that it does favor developement in the outer areas when they plan to upgrade the outer beltway areas while continually ignoring the urban core.

This sort of planning though undoubtedly made enemies:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/01/blog-post.html

So we get conspicuous freeway truncations as this:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-395-extension.html

Indeed, an inside the Beltway system as truncated as shown here:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/01/trip-within-beltway-101.html

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 30, 2009 5:37 pm • linkreport

Douglas,

The plans are to add interchanges to most/all of the intersections on 301. Personally, I hope that then it will serve as a growth boundary, but again, I'm not optimistic. Frankly, I think PG County has more than enough interstate connections to DC, and running any more highway in the County inside the Beltway (i.e. the Pepco ROW, Pennsylvania Av, Central Av) would only have a deleterious effect on the highly valuable traditionally planned towns that are starting to reinvigorate county real estate.

by Dave Murphy on Jan 31, 2009 3:25 pm • linkreport

I wanted to specify in that last comment I was referring to the PEPCO ROW between the I-95/Beltway interchange and Eastern Av and NH Av, not the PEPCO ROW I mentioned in the Outer Beltway section.

by Dave Murphy on Jan 31, 2009 3:28 pm • linkreport

Pennsylvania Av, Central Av?

What interstate connections are there to DC from PG county other then I-295 from the south?

You now oppose inside the Beltway PEPCO I-95, and thus support greater parochialism in transportation?

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 31, 2009 3:31 pm • linkreport

What made you switch your position?

Having made myself quite familiar with the PEPCO corridor I see no merit whatsoever to your new position.

The PEPCO right of way is most appropriate for a highway with a below grade mainline and new development atop in places as alongside New Hampshire Avenue and with a full tunnel through the property of the Order of the Eastern Star.

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 31, 2009 3:35 pm • linkreport

Also the B&O RR right of way is most appropriate for adding the much needed North Central Freeway though it should be constructed in a concrete tunnel box beneath a new linear park in the Catholic University of America-Brookland area.

We need infrastructure for serving the general public rather then the neurosis of those with more power then they deserve.

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 31, 2009 3:41 pm • linkreport

PG has more highway (although not all Interstate) connections into DC than either other bordering jurisdiction. It has both ends of 295, the Suitland Pkwy, and Rt. 50. But before huge amounts of money are spent for more highways that will lead to more sprawl, PG should make better use of the infrastructure it has by developing around its underutilized Metro stations. Besides, building more highways into and through the District will disrupt neighborhoods, encourage more driving, and require more wasteful parking downtown. We need to move away from that model.

by RichardatCourthouse on Jan 31, 2009 4:53 pm • linkreport

Completing the interstate highway links into and through Washington, D.C. as I have proposed -- variants of later designs rather then the 1955-1959 plan -- will do far far more to connect neighborhoods and be less disruptive to neighborhoods locally then the status quo, with the exception of that boundaries in D.C. by 4th St. and New Jersey Avenue, M and N Streets.

Building around existing WMATA stations will not serve a single existing neighborhood, though is nonetheless a good idea for accommodating more people, provided that it is not a corridor chock.

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 31, 2009 5:49 pm • linkreport

Good. Us suburbanites need increased capacity for our commutes and also to drive to go to our friends houses. I see that our influence in elections is still paying off.

by MPC on Jan 31, 2009 11:20 pm • linkreport

Douglas,

US-50 is (unsigned) interstate 595, which also leads into the District. Though not interstates, the B-W Parkway, and Suitland Parkway are virtually interstates with no trucks (which is antithetical to the constructing freeways in an urban environment, as taking such traffic off city streets ought to be their primary purpose). PA Av and Central Av (and I think Branch as well) have been proposed on and off for interstate-level service inside the Beltway on and off through the years.

I have never supported the North Central Freeway, though I have pondered some of the suggested alignment, and I have stated that IF 95 were to be connected through the city that this would be the most logical and least destructive alignment. I have never endorsed it. Any freeway improvement within the District of Columbia should focus on eliminating the dead-end stubs by directing traffic onto existing, connected freeways. Traffic should be mitigated with congestion pricing, and freeways should be utilized for their intended purpose, which was national defense, not commuting. The system was implemented by a former Army general before it was taken over and raped by the car manufacturing industry.

The North Central Freeway would induce traffic that would have a calamitous effect on the very positive development occurring in Chillum, Adelphi, and Langley Park as they are beginning to benefit from development in the adjacent traditionally planned cities of Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and of course NE Washington. The cost of constructing the freeway as you propose it (which would still induce the traffic) would put a grossly unnecessary strain on Prince George's already depleted transportation coffers.

by Dave Murphy on Feb 1, 2009 3:30 am • linkreport

Having lived in Takoma Park and gone to drafting school in Langley Park within site of the power line corridor, my observation is that the freeway would provide an alternative to traffic chocked New Hampshire Avenue (the highway route does not even go through Chillum). It would also alleviate traffic on North Capitol Street, so I do not see how inducing all of the traffic onto the surface street grid helps.

Of course it would have to continue into DC to I-395, but is not that the point of connecting dad end freeway?

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 1, 2009 2:04 pm • linkreport

From Up The Pike comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30306615&postID=1633367509209140778

On NH Av, fix it up. Willinger has the right idea about keeping the PEPCO corridor open for a by-pass or trains (or better yet, a multi-modal transit corridor), but fix the character of that roadway at all costs. The "State" Avenues should be grand boulevards leading into the District, not traffic gutters for commuters to clog.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 1, 2009 5:13 pm • linkreport

IMO, Crain Hwy and 301 should've been freeways (or very limited-access at-grade expressways) to begin with. Having some sort of "Eastern Bypass" would've reduced the need to majorly rebuild both Springfield Interchange and the WWB.

On the bike/ped side, some better bike connections leading outward from WWB/National Harbor would be nice.

by Froggie on Feb 1, 2009 8:45 pm • linkreport

So true, along with the failure to construct the I-95 at the Beltway to the Center Leg in Washington, D.C. connector, as that via the B&O - PEPCO Route.

It is ashame that a generalized attitude against freeways leads to a discouragement for better freeway design alternatives, hence when a freeway occurs it does with far from optimal design.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/search/label/Alexandria%20Orb

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 1, 2009 9:02 pm • linkreport

Douglas, your consistency is always amazing to me.

I'll just repeat myself. Highways dump cars on city streets. City streets get filled up with cars from other places. Parking lots are built to store cars. Parking lots are large. They push destinations farther apart. It becomes less convenient to walk due to increased distances. It becomes more convenient to drive because of the larger distance and increased parking. The ease of use of driving attracts more discretionary trips by car, leading to more traffic. There are calls to widen the streets and build more highways, which bring more cars demanding more parking which leads to more road widenings and highways and so on and so forth in perpetuity until everythingis covered in asphalt.

This cycle happens, regardless of how "well designed" the highway is.

by Cavan on Feb 1, 2009 10:18 pm • linkreport

Cavan-

They are far more inclined to limit the number of higways to those that now exist, then they are to do that with the number of registered vehicle. So your hypothesis that the grade seperation that has been a hallmark of urban planning should exclude anything automotive even though that reduces the amount of human activity attainable and reconciled with a given footprint.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 1, 2009 10:29 pm • linkreport

On the contrary, I would argue that freeway opposition can yield highways that are much better designed, like I-66 in Arlington. Here we have a multi-modal corridor, with a bike/ped trail and Metro line along with a partially-HOV highway. Relatively frequent street and bike/ped crossings connect neighborhoods on either side, while building a narrower road left more space for landscaping and shielding from residential neighborhoods. The road does have congestion issues that could be solved with more HOV restrictions and buses and/or tolling. I-66 is not perfect, but the compromise solution is much better than other area Interstates.

But good design does not solve the basic problems of urban freeways: they move too few people for the money they cost and the space they consume, and studies show that more urban road capacity only induces more traffic. Cities with lots of freeways are not traffic-free panaceas (Los Angeles, Atlanta). You simply cannot build enough lane-miles to accommodate everyone who would drive if there weren't traffic. And once more people are driving, eventually they have to leave the freeway and park somewhere, which is why highway-centric cities often end up with acres of parking downtown. Of course, driving also has well-known environmental costs. For these reasons,given X amount of transportation funding, we would be better off building more high capacity transit service than more freeways, whether the roads are well designed or not.

by RichardatCourthouse on Feb 1, 2009 10:39 pm • linkreport

It CAN, but often it does not if the anti freeway opposition is strictly anti freeway rather then say pro conservationist (which had led to such reforms as the I-66 K Street tunnel and the B&O low level route proposal North Central Freeway.

In Alexandria, I found that a widespread focus on the number of lanes let more qualified concepts go officially unconsidered.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 1, 2009 10:47 pm • linkreport

Cavan: your argument speaks more to the disconnect between transportation and land-use than it does to the "perpetual highway cycle". In part because the former causes the latter.

Richard: hate to disagree with you, but Atlanta does not have "lots of freeways". It may seem that way compared with DC, but the reality is there are not very many alternative routes in Atlanta.

LA has more freeways, but they also have a very high population level (something like 8 million in LA County alone), so it's a no-brainer that their freeways are busy.

More freeways is not necessarily a bad thing. I cite Minneapolis as an example: having a "grid system" of freeways in Hennepin County not only spreads traffic out (instead of concentrating it on 1 or 2 routes like Atlanta, DC, and other metro areas), but it has also allowed MnDOT to survive with 4 or 6 lane freeways, instead of having to have 8-10 lane freeways instead.

Now yeah, you could do the same thing with arterial roads, but arterials have an inherantly lower capacity due to traffic signals. Also, well-designed arterial roads are in short supply in no small part because of development/real-estate pressure for direct access to the road (a *BIG* problem in Virginia, not so much in Maryland).

by Froggie on Feb 2, 2009 8:19 am • linkreport

Douglas,

Even though such a freeway would not run through Chillum, it would still have a negative and partitioning effect on the town for all the reasons Cavan mentioned. Chillum and Langley Park are in the process of overcoming suburbanization, and even the best designed highways would damage this type of progress.

Also, support for a multi-modal transportation corridor is not support for a freeway, and certainly not support for an interstate. The only new freeway connection for which I have ever even dabbled with endorsing was the New York Avenue tunnel, which I supported theoretically but dismissed as far too costly here:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1511

I generally favor the closure of freeways that are dead end stubs over connecting these stubs with new freeways.

Three of the four major highways connections to DC (50, 295 north and 295 south) dump out into Prince George's County. There is no reason that PG should be a dumping ground for freeway development.

by Dave Murphy on Feb 2, 2009 12:11 pm • linkreport

A highway will partition a place that it does not go through, yet proposals to tear out and replace much of Langley Park in the name of 'transit oriented development' are simply 'overcoming suburbanization.'

That's some analysis.

You did use the word bypass for the PEPCO corridor- and I don't believe you were referring to a new bike path.

Hopefully we will eventually get the PEPCO I-95 plus an ICC extension, preferably recycling large segments of the existing 301 alignment. That will give PG the two beltways and 3 interstate radials with 50 upgraded to I-66 and 295 ungraded to I-295 complete with a cut and cover rebuild to restore access to the Anacostia waterfront.

Cost is no excuse for not completing the I-395 tunnel extension, particularly in this age of post 911 need for evacuation routes- yet the govt wants to track everyone with license plate reader cameras and gps conjestion pricing- go figure with this jesuitical government.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 2, 2009 1:20 pm • linkreport

You are amazing. In your view, regardless of the situation, we always need more highways. Prince George's County is already suburban. We don't need to turn it into Atlanta with its extensive highway network and perpetual traffic jams.

Also, when Dave was referring to "overcoming suburbanization", he meant that those places are currently too busy for their suburban form to allow them to function. More people currently live in Langley Park than its suburban trasportation infrastructure can properly handle. It is built as an edge city but has the mobility and economic demands of an urban town/neighborhood. He meant "overcoming" as finding solutions to the limitations of its current infrastructure. A shiny new highway would make it more edge-city-like. Which would be a colossal waste of resources because the whole edge-city thing just isn't working too well. Perhaps it worked when it was built in the 1960's on what was, at the time, the fringe of the Washington region. However, this day has long since passed and it's time for infrastructure, zoning, and economics that allow it to capitalize on its strategic advantages(to borrow a term from Richard Layman) rather than struggle with a form that is for another time, another economy, and a previous mobility paradigm.

by Cavan on Feb 2, 2009 1:48 pm • linkreport

We do regarding the substantial arc between the Potomac River and the BW Parkway, and the sheer lack of any radial freeway.

We don't regarding radials for the arc to the south as we have the Suitland Parkway and I-295.

But where we do lack the highways white is black and black is white when the best highway route goes next to CUA with its attitude of nowhere near us, keep us isolated, and through a mason property on NH Avenue.

So we are to tear out people's homes to enrichen developers but we can't add a freeway where it is clearly needed and has the open right of way? I call that most amazing.

And now they plan this boondoggle in Brookland to chock the corridor in D.C.

Are Atlanta's problems highways or a lack of options?

Within the Beltway it is all about stymieing choice and fostering isolation for the sake of jesuitical social selfishness.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/02/sampling-of-attitudes-towards-dc-i-95.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/05/1964-north-central-freeway-routing_08.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/12/who-really-stopped-washington-dcs.html

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 2, 2009 2:12 pm • linkreport

Douglass, do you really think the light rail in Balto divides the neighborhood near MD Art Inst. (or whatever it's called) as much as I-83 does the old neighborhoods north of the Inner harbor? (or any multi-lane fast traffic road divides a neighborhood?) When I've visited Balto i've just stepped over the tracks. Really easy compared to trying to cross multi-lanes of fast moving cars on their way out of the neighborhood, like Conn Ave. at rush hr. in DC.

by Bianchi on Feb 2, 2009 2:17 pm • linkreport

No.

Provided we are talking about conventional design freeways.

I have advocated for cut and cover tunnel freeways as the alternative.

With you mentioning CT Avenue, how about that surface traffic? Would you have supported or opposed the DuPont Circle tunnel?

Some did.

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2007/08/classic-classism-kathryn-schneider.html

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 2, 2009 2:22 pm • linkreport

wow. But the DuPont circle tunnel makes the cars go faster. And it still gets backed up during rush hour. Worst of both worlds.

And then you still have the problems of parking all those extra cars that come in from the freeway, as I mentioned in my previous comment.

by Cavan on Feb 2, 2009 2:26 pm • linkreport

The PEPCO corridor would barely decrease the "substantial arc" between the BW Parkway and the Potomac... or perhaps I should say the Clara Barton Parkway.

A multi-modal by-pass on the PEPCO corridor would be an at-grade arterial that would increase street connectivity in that portion of the county with more direct access to I-95 northbound.

The changes coming to Langley Park are not "tearing out" housing in Langley Park, they are redeveloping and reconfiguring the area to fit MORE housing. Though I disapprove of any measure to decrease the amount of affordable residences in that area, I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

I also fail to see how a freeway through this area benefits the residents of that area. And it is incredibly irresponsible to say that cost should not be afactor considering how freeway construction is currently bankrupting transportation coffers. Not to mention the abysmal state of the Price George's County and DC public school systems.

by Dave Murphy on Feb 2, 2009 2:36 pm • linkreport

Wrong.

The PEPCO corridor together with the B&O corridor provides the best serviceability and spacing.

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/560/1265/1600/108960/image102.jpg

To me its amazing that they even bothered with the other options.

But like CCCC's opposition to the Purple Line, the dog gets to wag the tail when the overly influential don't want it near or through their property, aka CUA and masonic eastern star which hosts the Committee of 100 Christmas parties.

BTW- that is the first time I have seen the use of the term bypass refer to an arterial with lights rather then a grade separated highway which would benefits local people with greater job market access.

But when its a highway that goes next to or through the properties of the overly influential, people will say anything.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 2, 2009 4:26 pm • linkreport

Also it is incredibly irresponsible to say nothing abut the terrible wastes of money on the Pentagon-Pentagram, the drug war criminal mercantilism cigarette market protection, ect that the Feds waste countess billions on, but oh we do not have money to finish I-395 through DC. Talk about enabling waste.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 2, 2009 4:29 pm • linkreport

Cavan-

Build parking garages which allow greater use of the existing footprint rather then single level parking lots.

Cities are about providing a multilevel experience, yet somehow that which is being presented as urbanism presents an anti urbanist approach when it comes to automobiles.

So I suppose that you agreed with Cissy Patterson?

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 2, 2009 6:06 pm • linkreport

Doug,

The fundamental problem to your approach is that cities are dense places where space is at a premium, and automobiles are the most spatially inefficient mode of surface transportation we have. They require a ton of space to park and to move, and even more space to move them at high speed - to say nothing about the space needed for their decentralized movement patterns.

by Alex B. on Feb 2, 2009 8:07 pm • linkreport

There is plenty of space when we account for existing corridors and the use of tunnelization, and that no one advocates building only for people with automobiles. Just look at the evolution of the transportation planning and how people were conned into accepting less.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/01/trip-within-beltway-101.html

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html

Such does cost more to build, but the money is there to install reader cameras and gps based conjestion pricing for monies that none will go towards the automotive infrastructure.

Its is not a problem of space and money, but rather the rot at the top of the political pyramid that remains the same despite the political sloganeering.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 2, 2009 8:25 pm • linkreport

Douglas,

The PEPCO corridor would shorten the 20 mile "arc" along the northern section of the Beltway by 4.3 miles. But it would do a great job of keeping partitioning freeway development out of Montgomery County.

We're all familiar with your displeasure towards the Department of Defense. Yes, the Pentagon wastes buckets of money every day, as do several other government organizations. If you can find an effective way to convince them to divert those wasted funds to a combined transportation fund, I will gladly start to entertain the notion of 11-figure price tag buried freeway. Considering that freeways were the progeny of the Defense Department, however, I have a hard time believing that they are somehow stymieing freeway production.

by Dave Murphy on Feb 3, 2009 12:27 am • linkreport

Not the true patriots within the Department of Defense but rather the political masters connected with various significant pieces of real estate mentioned in these discussions. (Try googling "Tupper Saussy")

The PEPCO route of course must work past its southern end and connect and then continue via the B&O rr corridor.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 3, 2009 1:25 am • linkreport

Doug,

Your Orb idea aside, you are starting to sound a little loonish here. Step away from the 60's and 70's. Making our built environment for cars instead of people means that we rely on our cars for everything, therefore we need lots and lots of fuel, which means we have to spend countless billions via our DoD to maintain friendly governments in areas of the world that hate us because we interfere in their daily lives because they live over or near such large quantities of oil. We have to break that cycle, the sooner the better.

by NikolasM on Feb 3, 2009 10:30 am • linkreport

"...away from the 60's and 70's. Making our built environment for cars instead of people means that we rely on our cars for everything..."

Automobiles are for people, and cities are for both, including cars that are not automobiles (aka trains).

I do not advocate a highways only policy.

Yet many consider a transit only policy regarding grade separated projects, while relying upon clinches that imply that autos are peopleless.

Chocking a transport corridor is what is looney.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 3, 2009 12:00 pm • linkreport

Cars are practically people-less. Around 15 linear feet, 6 feet of width, all the requisite buffer around that as you travel at any reasonable speed, 1.5-2 tons of metal cage around you = lots of space for very little human compared to the abilities of mass transit.

by NikolasM on Feb 3, 2009 5:53 pm • linkreport

Same with a private dwelling versus a barracks.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 3, 2009 8:06 pm • linkreport

Private dwellings do not require nearly as much public infrastructure investment. Unless of course, they are oriented to cars.

by Dave Murphy on Feb 13, 2009 2:42 am • linkreport

It would make more sense to transform US 301 into an extended I-97- which would eventually connect with I-95 near Richmond. They could also extend I-97 along the Harbor Tunnel Thruway so that we would have an eastern bypass of the DC area.

by MCG on Nov 5, 2009 8:58 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