Roads
Gaithersbungle, part 2: Old, tired formulas generate old, disastrous solutions
The Montgomery Planning Department just recommended widening I-270 between Rockville and Clarksburg to 12 lanes, and adding two new lanes north of Clarksburg. The project would cost $3.8 billion, and would be a disastrous move for the County. The analysis relies on antiquated Level of Service analysis that downplays the side effects of the widening on sprawl, and ignores other alternatives such as pricing existing lanes which would alleviate congestion more cheaply and with much less damage.
Bye, bye Md. countryside. Photo by bettinche.
Widening 270 would fuel the greatest expansion of auto-dependent sprawl in Montgomery County in over a generation. In 1980, foresighted Montgomery County leaders created the Agricultural Reserve, protecting 90,000 acres of farmland in the county's rural area. They created a program to transfer development rights from agricultural land to the denser, downcounty areas, to focus growth around existing infrastructure and existing jobs.
The Reserve excludes several large areas around Clarksburg and Germantown, and as the Planning Board notes, the County has added significant amounts of new housing there, as well as in Frederick County. However, the report ignores the huge, real effect of induced demand. New lanes would spur even more auto-dependent single-family homes out in these areas, homes very, very far from jobs. The development would put pressure on future County leaders to narrow the Reserve. And, most of all, it would drive even more sprawling growth in Frederick County.
Instead of seeing freeway expansion as driving demand, the Planning Department report simply takes development as static and focuses almost entirely on vehicular Level of Service (LOS). That's entirely the wrong measure.
Planning Staff have taken a small bite out of LOS-centrism in the proposed Growth Policy, recommending a change in the standard from D to E. But if you're only designing a transportation network with the goal of moving as many cars as possible as fast as possible, you end up with distorted answers. As the saying goes in transportation planning, "If you plan for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places."
The staff report dismisses the "no-build alternative" simply because it will not relieve congestion on the roadway. But it doesn't challenge the basic assumptions that speeding the drive from Frederick during rush hour should be the County's priority with $3.8 billion.
Worst of all, the staff never consider better options, like congestion charging on existing lanes. FHWA itself concluded that charging tolls on 270 during peak periods could move enough "discretionary" car trips to other times to alleviate the congestion problems on 270. Freeways behave somewhat paradoxically, where very small changes in demand cause big changes in congestion. Brookings just released a paper recommending a road-use pricing system.
Next: Another way to improve transportation in the corridor, for less than $3.8 billion.
 | 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
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
I esepcially like that in the same report they recommend spending $3.8 billion on highway expansion, they reject a $778 million light rail line as "too expensive." From the Washington Post: "Montgomery County planners have recommended that a bus rapid transit system be built along the Interstate 270 corridor, saying that the other choice, a light rail line, would be too expensive to win federal funding." What a BS argument: the federal rules for funding rail transit projects are going to change farily soon, certainly within the time frame the Montogmery County "planners" are looking at. Surely the "planners" are aware of this fact?!? Anyone who works in transportation and planning should be fully aware that the next federal surface transportation bill, whether it passes this year, next year or in 2011, will almost certainly include a reform of the New Starts process and the elimination of the cost-effectiveness index.
A bad day for Montgomery County and Maryland. let's hope wiser heads prevail.
by rg on Jul 1, 2009 10:33 am • link • report
by NikolasM on Jul 1, 2009 10:35 am • link • report
Modest increases in the gas tax take care of the funding issue; more dramatic increases will start to change behavior. That is what we need, not road pricing.
by charlie on Jul 1, 2009 10:40 am • link • report
by Ian Valentine on Jul 1, 2009 10:48 am • link • report
by цarьchitect on Jul 1, 2009 11:03 am • link • report
To me it's the same kind of denying, close-minded ignorance embraced by Semmelweis's collegues after he showed an association between washing one's hands and decreased patient infection and death.
by Bianchi on Jul 1, 2009 11:22 am • link • report
I don't think that is the best answer, but it is far more sensible than what they are proposing. If it's going to happen anyway, at least work with what you've got there already.
A 14 lane highway won't work. That is a whole hell of a lot of lane changes, which is pretty unsafe. It also creates a bottleneck at the Beltway. If we widen 270, they will argue we have to widen the Beltway. It's a never ending cycle.
by Dave Murphy on Jul 1, 2009 12:16 pm • link • report
Just looking at that typical cross-section...FHWA would probably shoot this down, but they could easily cut out 28ft of cross-section width by reducing the inside shoulders from 10-12ft to 4ft.
by Froggie on Jul 1, 2009 12:50 pm • link • report
Development, be it urban or suburban, should not be allowed unless adequate public transit (rail, bus, BRT, etc.) is involved in the design and open space is preserved. There is no reason developers cannot create town centers (i.e., communities) where there is a mix of high density commercial/residential and dedicated mass transit that links other centers. Instead, all we get across the country is strip malls and cul de sacs, even within the confines of urban areas. As two more strip malls are built an existing one dies and is forgotten.
by sf4fun66 on Jul 1, 2009 12:57 pm • link • report
So they could have written a good but unrealistic plan (unrealistic unless state/local government ponies up a lot more, which they won't, especially given the giant sucking sound of the ICC), or they could have written this one. Tough choice!
by Gavin Baker on Jul 1, 2009 1:51 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Jul 1, 2009 2:14 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Jul 1, 2009 2:21 pm • link • report
by Ben Ross on Jul 1, 2009 2:58 pm • link • report
Full disclosure: I am one of the coauthors of the report David linked to.
by Benjamin Orr on Jul 1, 2009 4:18 pm • link • report
And since you mention the District's use of that option, it should be pointed out that DC was a special case, where "Interstate Substitution" funds, from the cancellation of the rest of the DC Interstate system (I-66, I-95, I-295, I-695) is where the DC funding came from. Unless Congress starts adding, and funding, new Interstate corridors that later become cancelled, that's never going to happen again.
by Froggie on Jul 1, 2009 5:52 pm • link • report
UGH!!! Let's hope that the final decision makers reject these recommendations from the "planners," who should be ashamed of themselves. Really, really ashamed of themselves. I mean, seriously?!? This boondoggle is what the planning department in a supposedly progressive jurisdiction is recommneding?!?
I esepcially like that in the same report they recommend spending $3.8 billion on highway expansion, they reject a $778 million light rail line as "too expensive." From the Washington Post: "Montgomery County planners have recommended that a bus rapid transit system be built along the Interstate 270 corridor, saying that the other choice, a light rail line, would be too expensive to win federal funding." What a BS argument: the federal rules for funding rail transit projects are going to change farily soon, certainly within the time frame the Montogmery County "planners" are looking at. Surely the "planners" are aware of this fact?!? Anyone who works in transportation and planning should be fully aware that the next federal surface transportation bill, whether it passes this year, next year or in 2011, will almost certainly include a reform of the New Starts process and the elimination of the cost-effectiveness index.
A bad day for Montgomery County and Maryland. let's hope wiser heads prevail.
me-
Yep, once again more hatred coming from the same folx that had no Issues with Virginia Progressing with widening the I-495 to 12 Lanes.
Like I said before the Haters want to see Maryland fail economically/businessly while their Common Wealth state of Virginia continues to Increase Revenue, Business, and Economic Growth by Approving more Highway Widening.
by mike on Jul 1, 2009 9:02 pm • link • report
What imaginary money is going to build this? Isn't the ICC sucking them dry? Or is this like Virginia's 'free' HOT lane construction?
me-
I hope it will be like Virginia's free HOT Lane Construction and I am assuming that the money from the HOT Lanes will pay for the Construction.
by mike on Jul 1, 2009 9:07 pm • link • report
I like everything you said here, except the last paragraph. Road pricing is NOT the answer. Lets be clear who is pushing road pricing: road builders. They know the federal gas tax isn't generating enough revenue to fund them. So they want road pricing put in so they get $4 billion HOT lane contracts. They are well funded and well organized and can easily sponsor studies at the Brookings of the world.
Modest increases in the gas tax take care of the funding issue; more dramatic increases will start to change behavior. That is what we need, not road pricing.
me-
Sorry but Increasing gas taxes will not stop people from driving their cars and it doesn't matter how much road haters preach about preventing more roads from getting built or widen it is still going to happen no matter what.
by mike on Jul 1, 2009 9:15 pm • link • report
Okay, so they want more capacity for 270. I would like a high speed train to Frederick, but we'll ignore that for now. Why do these toll lanes have to be NEW lanes? Why can't they take the far left lane in each direction and convert them into a pair of reversible lanes?
I don't think that is the best answer, but it is far more sensible than what they are proposing. If it's going to happen anyway, at least work with what you've got there already.
A 14 lane highway won't work. That is a whole hell of a lot of lane changes, which is pretty unsafe. It also creates a bottleneck at the Beltway. If we widen 270, they will argue we have to widen the Beltway. It's a never ending cycle.
me-
Most of the Highways in Atlanta are 14 Lanes and there aren't any Complaints from the Commuters/Interstate Travelers.........
by mike on Jul 1, 2009 9:24 pm • link • report
Charlie: road pricing only helps road builders if it results in new roads. Lots of people, myself included, talk about pricing in terms of reducing congestion on existing roads (though as others have pointed out there are significant legal barriers to that currently). If some of the revenue generated went to maintaining current infrastructure that would be good too, whether it benefited road builders or not.
Full disclosure: I am one of the coauthors of the report David linked to.
mike-
Unfortunatelly if its Federal throughout the Country there is no wa in the world you or any other road haters can stop Highway Building/Widening in Maryland.
by mike on Jul 1, 2009 9:34 pm • link • report
by Gavin Baker on Jul 1, 2009 10:24 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Jul 2, 2009 10:04 am • link • report
by NikolasM on Jul 2, 2009 10:08 am • link • report
by rg on Jul 2, 2009 12:13 pm • link • report
mike: Surely you jest. Everybody hates driving in Atlanta.
me-
You say that everyone hates driving in Atlanta but that doesn't stop the Mass Number of People from the Northeast(majority of the people residing in Atlanta are from the NY, Philly, and Boston), DC, Mid-West, and West Coast from moving to Atlanta.
by mike on Jul 2, 2009 9:14 pm • link • report
Mike, when the revenue doesn't pay for the construction of the VA HOT lanes, the state is then contractually obliged to make up the expected revenue difference. This is a bad idea in VA, and a bad idea in MD.
me-
But they are clearing land along the Virginia Beltway to make way of the HOT Lane Widening, and the state is still going along with plans to add Lanes on I-66 to DC although I-66 has a Modern Highspeed Heavy Rail Subway that Snakes along the I-66 median.
by mike on Jul 2, 2009 9:19 pm • link • report
mike -- you are WAAAAYYY off. I was against the other one as well. Plus I live in DC, so it's all the same to me re: MD versus VA. As for Atlanta -- I would rather die a slow painful death than face the prospect of commuting by car in Atlanta. And I'm only exaggerating a bit........
me-
Thats you verses 1,000's of people from the Northeast and DC that remain residing in the ATL for years without any talks of moving from the state of Peaches.
I remember a few years ago GDOT were proposing Plans to make certain parts of I-75(Northwest of Atlanta) 24 Lanes.
by mike on Jul 2, 2009 9:26 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Jul 3, 2009 4:45 pm • link • report
by цarьchitect on Jul 3, 2009 5:38 pm • link • report
by Cy on Jul 5, 2009 1:03 am • link • report
by Johnny Lucid on Jul 13, 2009 11:59 am • link • report
If it's not too much trouble I have a RFE for the blog:
Please add a link to email blog posts to relevant authorities.
I would, as a citizen in montgomery county, really like to send this post as a letter to the County Council or at least the planning department.
I understand that I could click on "share or email" and then look up the council member's email addresses, but it would be very helpful if the post had a link that made this easier.
Obviously the link would have to be different for different posts, as you wouldn't want to email the PG county council about issues related to downtown Alexandria. I would be willing to assemble a database of relevant email addresses, if necessary.
Thank you.
by Shahar Goldin on Jul 14, 2009 9:15 am • link • report
And these are the folks who "plan" all the roads in Bethesda, downtown Silver Spring, Chevy Chase, even Kensington, as commuter routes to the District. No wonder they want to "improve" the Interstate system.
by resident on Sep 17, 2010 5:06 pm • link • report
Add a Comment