This would all be a moot point if there wasn't a Congressional earmark for the project.

On a somewhat different note, someone on another forum asked this question: would Arlington residents prefer car traffic on the freeway, or using the side streets?

Lastly, though I support the concept of auxiliary lanes, I still think VDOT should've dropped this project and kept the I-66 resurfacing outside the Beltway, instead of the other way around.

by Froggie on Feb 23, 2009 10:06 am  

Froggie, there's plenty of evidence that the induced demand of adding freeway lanes would also add traffic to local streets.

David, I noticed you commented on Marc Fisher's column. Talk about armchair engineering...

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2009 10:14 am  

On a somewhat different note, someone on another forum asked this question: would Arlington residents prefer car traffic on the freeway, or using the side streets?

That's a false choice. Are they suggesting cars coming in on I-66 are getting off it because of being denied a few stretches of more lanes?

Besides, to the extent car commuters are exiting I-66 to continue into Washington, they are using thoroughfares like Lee Highway, not the proverbial "side streets".

by Reid on Feb 23, 2009 10:19 am  

I check googlemaps/traffic as I drive and if there are backups on 66, I almost always opt for driving the city streets of Arlington. If that is what you want, fine. A third lane between the Toll Road and Ballston would do wonders. It would still be miles of two lane highway into and out of DC, which would be the true regulator of increased traffic for this highway.

by NikolasM on Feb 23, 2009 10:23 am  

The part of me that says "you made a bargain--keep it" gives me qualms about widening.

But if you're worried about sprawl, besides being too late, why not leave I-66 at 2 lanes between the toll road and the beltway. Then the sprawlers have to fit through a bottleneck, but the folks closer in have a bit more room to operate.

by ah on Feb 23, 2009 10:27 am  

Exactly, ah.

If the input is two lanes and the output is two lanes, three lanes in the middle help mostly those in the middle. The 'sprawlers' are still squeezed.

by NikolasM on Feb 23, 2009 10:35 am  

three lanes in the middle help mostly those in the middle.

No they don't. Adding lanes for a short stretch only creates more traffic as cars jockey to change lanes. The "static" created by this causes slowdowns, not to mention an increase in fender-benders, which seriously slow down traffic.

This is why you need real traffic engineers that have been given proper instructions (i.e. not instructions like "we want more lanes, justify it") to make decisions. As soon as you look to the masses stuck in traffic for wisdom on how to lessen traffic, you're bound to get the type of answers that seem right, but are tragically wrong.

Besides, if you were to add lanes in Arlington, other than inducing more car traffic originating from Arlington, it would simply make Fairfax's case to expand the rest of it all that much easier.

Good for you Arlington. Fairfax screwed itself by chasing a false promise of endless sprawl. Let them reap what they sowed.

Also, didn't GGW endorse Bulova? Where was the vetting on that one?

by Reid on Feb 23, 2009 11:09 am  

Static? It already doesn't move most of the time because of Fairfax Drive dumping tons of traffic onto two lanes and vice versa with the Toll Road merging into two lanes the other way. There would be 3.9 miles to change lanes, far better than the quarter mile insane static friction they have now. That is plenty of time for some good signage indicating the two left lanes are the through lanes. The Fairfax Dr exit gets plenty of use so it probably won't be a cut around for a-hole drivers. That could be alleviated with solid lane markers from a good way out. Have cops stationed there and any last second mergers get ticketed for failing to obey the signs.

by NikolasM on Feb 23, 2009 11:27 am  

The lack of analysis on this project makes you wonder about the efficacy of the "silver line". That project also, had very little discussion of transit options through Tyson’s Corner and on to the Airport.

I personally believe that VDOT and the Commonwealth of Virginia primarily have long been pawns of specific commercial constituencies ( i.e. construction companies and real estate developers) at the expense of the taxpaying commuting public.

by Tom on Feb 23, 2009 12:29 pm  

@NikolasM said: "would Arlington residents prefer car traffic on the freeway, or using the side streets?"

I think that they expect some drivers to find a way through Arlington to avoid the traffic.

But, as you can attest, that is not a very attractive alternative for either the commuter or the county. The expectation is that commuter will sour on the detour and I-66 because it is just not as convienient as taking mass transit.

So the answer is yes they expect someone like you to drive on the county's streets, but no they don't want this to happen. They also expect you'll get tired of the detour and do something else. Like take metro or a bus.

I think what is missing in your frustration is that the board said no until other other options are studied. If these options present a better solution to reducing congestion, than they should be funded. Just adding highway capacity has been shown as an often flawed strategy.

by Tom on Feb 23, 2009 12:43 pm  

This is mostly a continuation on my part of the arguments in a post from a few days ago... IMO this (and perhaps the Silver Line to Tyson's once that gets done) are the best and in this case, pretty easy and relatively inexpensive fix to the congestion problem in this area. Clearly that is not everyone's opinion here.

by NikolasM on Feb 23, 2009 1:02 pm  

I agree with NikolasM. Get 'er done. This is a necessary fix and doesn't represent some huge addition to capacity, but rather just makes the road functional under normal capacity. This road is often backed up at odd hours of the night and during weekends.

by SG on Feb 23, 2009 1:16 pm  

I think I wrote a post about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...

Taking a shoulder to make a lane on a road that shouldn't exist is an obvious example of what I was talking about.

Building the road sure didn't alleviate traffic. How would moving its bottleneck farther down alleviate traffic? It sure would spend some money, though.

by Cavan on Feb 23, 2009 1:29 pm  

Traveling on "side streets" is irrelevant to the conversation. The argument there is that commuters would travel through neighborhoods where the speed limit is 25 mph, there are stop signs at every intersection, traffic circles and never ending speed humps. As an Arlington resident, I don't see this happening because most Arlingtonians don't like driving on these streets. Fairfax Drive, Wilson Blvd, Lee Highway, Washington Blvd, etc. are not side roads but major thoroughfares that are meant for relatively heavy traffic. Some people driving in from so far out have a destination in Arlington anyway. For those whose ultimate destination is DC and they're concerned about traffic, Lee Highway is a perfectly viable alternative. As discussed in a post about a month ago, it's relatively free of traffic, except in two bottleneck points - Glebe Rd, which is due to it being a busy intersection, and then in Rosslyn, which is where a lot of traffic is coming off of 66 to get into Rosslyn or Georgetown.

This topic comes up every few years, and people threaten that they are going to drive off the interstates and onto city streets if 66 isn't expanded. More than twenty years after 66 was built, traffic on the city streets is still relatively good. By the time 66 would finally be widened, we will have a new rail line heading out to Tyson's and eventually Loudoun County. On top of that, one would hope that new developments in Arlington and DC will encourage more people to live inside the beltway so that 66 could remain two lanes.

by Max on Feb 23, 2009 1:35 pm  

Another fix in another location would be to add a fifth lane to the Beltway from I-66 to the Toll Road. I-66 and the Beltway is a cluster-eff of a spot. A fifth lane for those exiting 66 to the inner loop would solve much of the 5 miles of backups every morning because 2 lanes of 66 wouldn't be immediately merging into 4 full lanes of the beltway. All those cars enter from the left and most merge across four lanes to exit into Tyson's Corner, causing a chokepoint of epic proportions. Making 66 enter to the right with a flyover would have been epically cheaper and surely more effective than that multibillion dollar boondoogle HOT thing that is now being constructed because of these very backups. In reverse a fifth lane from the Toll Road to I-66 on the Outer Loop would have been mighty helpful. At the very least a fifth lane from Route 7 to I-66.

by NikolasM on Feb 23, 2009 1:54 pm  

That reversible lane just could be the answer to traffic congestion... for about 20 minutes until the drivers already on the road plus all the new drivers who just found out about the shiny new lane that will uncongest the highways is now open clog it up.

by Cavan on Feb 23, 2009 2:51 pm  

NikolasM, that logic has been the prevailing logic for over sixty years. It has never worked. Why would it work this time? You can't build your way out of car traffic.

Remember that personal vehicles take up a lot of space per person. That fact is not going to be changed. You need to plan to move people, not cars. People are much smaller and take less room per person.

by Cavan on Feb 23, 2009 2:54 pm  

I am assuming you are referring to my beltway suggestion.

I don't mean a reversible lane. I meant a fifth lane in each direction. I really don't think there are 60 years of failed thinking here. Failed thinking is adding 4 extra lanes each way for rich people to solve a problem that isn't even being addressed by the supposed solution. Failed thinking would be to add a fifth lane all the way around the beltway each way because backups routinely occur for 6 miles behind the trouble spot. Tyson's Corner is a major job hub and in the mornings all the single commuters have to exit at the Beltway to either 50 or the GW Parkway or something. Drive the inner loop of the beltway every morning for a week from Springfield and see if you can't spot the exact same solution I have. It is obvious and much cheaper than $2+B for HOT lanes that won't work. As with the three lanes between the Toll Road and Fairfax Dr on I-66 I have had plenty of time to think about this.

I do agree that cars take up tons of space and it was a terrible idea for us to embark on a transportation network that solely relies on cars. However, I am not one to sit around and not offer suggestions to fix problem spots on our existing network that can be solved fairly easily, especially when an extremely inefficient idea is being put into fruition. The improved Springfield Interchange has been a vast improvement over what was there prior (yes very expensive, I know) and I am sure that Wilson Bridge will improve that chokepoint as well. So far I have offered 7.8 lane miles on I-66 and 3.3 lane miles on the inner loop of the beltway and 1.2 on the outer loop. All of that would cost far less than what is happening now just for the Beltway. Anything beyond this and I would protest that it is a waste, too.

by NikolasM on Feb 23, 2009 3:15 pm  

This project isn't just some brute force solution to the problem. It's a more targeted spot-improvement. I think given that there are a lot of people getting on to the beltway and toll road from 66 inside the beltway, it's a reasonable project to widen it by a lane here. I definitely do not like having to lie about keeping 66 4 lanes to Arlington though. If this were to push congestion in the Fairfax, so be it, it probably will, but to me, it is more reasonable b/c of the number of people going into Northern Fairfax, Loudoun and Maryland from 66. But we should also stay committed to not succumbing to the pressure to widen 66 further in other places without some unique circumstances like this case.

Now, if I were a dictator, I would say forget it w/ respect to this project, but I don't think this is worth causing too big a stink about even as an Arlington resident.

by Vik on Feb 23, 2009 3:17 pm  

I generally support David and Cavan on this one.

Was this the blog that I read something about actually TAKING AWAY highways and roads as a way to improve traffic?

Did I miss the shiny new blog posting on that? I'd love to learn more.

by Jazzy on Feb 23, 2009 3:25 pm  

Just realized- the few times I've driven on 66 during rush hour I've seen a lot of cars that only have a single person. I realize that those driving to IAD have a legitimate and legal exception. Some of these people have big cars. Maybe if the HOV rules were actually enforced traffic wouldn't be as big of a concern.

Anyway, maybe just pay attention to the rules?

by Max on Feb 23, 2009 3:50 pm  

Jazzy, I can't remember reading anything here talking about taking away existing roads. While it would be an interesting thought experiment, it's a politically infeasable approach that would probably have many negative unintended consequences.

by Cavan on Feb 23, 2009 4:13 pm  

"I can't remember reading anything here talking about taking away existing roads."

Cavan, To find recommendations to remove existing capacity, you might just check the references to "road diet" on GGW.

by Tom on Feb 23, 2009 4:38 pm  

I thought Jazzy was referring to removing highways. Come to think of it, though, I think I did advocate for closing I-395 between Mass Ave and New York Ave. NW. While we're at it, tear down the SE/SW freeway.

In my view, it's about context. If it's a place with a human scale street grid, the streets should be small with slow traffic and pedestrian friendliness. Highways were conceived to connect human scale street grids, not destroy them. The road diet is about taking streets that have swelled to multiple lanes in an urban environment, not removing freeways that connect separate towns and cities.

by Cavan on Feb 23, 2009 4:47 pm  

I think it might have been a discussion that took place during the inauguration, in the context of all the closed roads. Yes, I am talking about taking roads - even highways - offline. There was a reference made to this at some point.

by Jazzy on Feb 23, 2009 6:33 pm  

No extra car lane on 66...how about a 3rd metro rail so we can run some sort of express trains from Rosslyn to Dulles..

by C on Feb 24, 2009 10:15 am  

When they build the third lane, I'm going to "break it in" by driving on it with my horn honking all the way. I hope you nay-sayers who tried to stop this hear me.

by Hank on Feb 24, 2009 12:40 pm  

You'll be honking on your horn all right... in stop and go traffic that's equally as dense as what exists now.

Remember, there will be thousands of others who would have the exact same brilliant idea that you do at the exact same time.

by Cavan on Feb 24, 2009 1:14 pm