Here (pdf) is a State Highway Administration chart showing average speeds on the free lanes (labeled GPL) and the toll lanes (labeled EPL). Under Alternative 7, average rush hour speeds differ only by 1 mph in the morning and 0 mph in the evening.

by Ben Ross on Jul 17, 2009 12:37 pm • link • report

Quick fixes that would improve 270:
- Extend southbound HOV lane up to Father Hurley or more.
- Clean the shoulders off and allow bus usage of shoulders from Frederick.
- Where 270 merges w/ 495East, make the left lane thru and merge off the right lane of 495 at Connecticut exit.

by shy on Jul 17, 2009 1:02 pm • link • report

All of this work to stop future Highway Widening of I-270 but again where was the Outcry when Virginia voted to add 4 More Lanes to I-495 between Tysons Corner and Springfield.

Yes I have read comments about some people on here not supporting I-495 getting New HOT Lanes but there was NO 5 PART THESIS on the Downside of widening VA I-495 and Convencing Groups of people to Write Letters to VDOT and Fairfax County Lawmakers opposing the I-495 Widening like they are doing with trying to stop future widening of I-270.

Stopping the widening of I-270 WILL BE DISASTOROUS because with the Completion of I-495 getting HOT Lanes making it 12 Lanes IT WILL create a SEVERE bottleneck on I-270 and I-495(between College Park and American Legion Bridge) due to I-270 and MD I-495 not matching the Multi-Lane Capacity that VA I-495 will have.

by mike on Jul 17, 2009 3:08 pm • link • report

The HOT Lanes phenomenon is a cancer spreading around the country.

Part of the problem is, the marketing is SO SO good (makes it appear to citizens and govt officials alike that you are getting "something for nothing" - ie: expensive lane widening). Another part of the problem is - most people are still convinced that adding highway lanes is a good thing.

Take the VA Hot Lanes as an example - govt officials were so taken in by the idea of "free" private construction that they could use HOV and buses on "for free" that they steamrolled the plan through with little community input.

At the last minute, Transurban said their cost estimate was off so the state ended up chipping in almost a billion for construction. furthermore, there are YEARLY FEES that the private toll company will charge the state for HOV and buses that use the HOT lanes.

So EVEN IF you believe that highway widening is a good thing, the whole concept is a big Lyle Lanely-Style S C A M.

My point...the best angle to fight this thing is to show the public in a succinct and clear way what the real cost details are, and that it will not be as cost effective as they think it is.

by stevek_fairfax on Jul 17, 2009 3:20 pm • link • report

mike: This blog wasn't around when Virginia was approving the HOT lanes.

I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. Even if I cover Maryland more than Virignia (which I don't), that's not because of some secret plan to excuse Virginia's bad highway behavior. Sometimes I just happen to have more information about one issue than another, or time to cover one issue more than another. There are no conclusions to be drawn. I criticize them both, and whether I criticize one more than another is immaterial; I don't want HOT lanes in either place.

You've started making some other points in addition to the "why haven't you written 5 part series about VA HOT lanes", but you keep making that other point too, first, most loudly, and unceasingly. I welcome actual debate, and if you are willing to advocate for your point of view without constantly harping on what we did and did not have a multi-part series on, then I'd strongly defend your right to, but you keep polluting the debate with this.

I reluctantly am going to have to turn off your ability to comment. If you want to email me and promise to stop with this ridiculous conspiracy theory argument, I'd love to turn your privilege back on. Feel free to email info@ggwash.org to discuss it.

by David Alpert on Jul 17, 2009 3:29 pm • link • report

Mike,
if it's any consolation, I wrote letters to Gerry Connolly and Tom Davis against the VA HOT lanes. And the few people on the Wash Post message boards that were aware of what a complete scam it was financially (again, even if one believes highway widening is a good thing) were pretty aghast...the articles written about the project by Post staff writers at the time were terrible and full of mis-information, completely ignoring for example, that "free" HOV and express bus use will be charged back to the state at the going rate ($5 per mile etc.). The stories also glossed over the last minute state kick-in of almost a billion bucks.

If people knew the facts and had a good way to compare apples to apples, they would have just voted for moderate congestion-pricing on the existing lanes, with said revenue going for safety improvements and mass transit construction from the south into Tysons Corner. I suspect if David's Blog had been up then that there would have been a Five Part series. In the meantime, go back and read some of the Post articles about the HOT lanes, they were not well-researched to say the least. If you're interested in media criticism - there is a fair target.

by stevek_fairfax on Jul 17, 2009 3:47 pm • link • report

Hold the phone. You guys are way off track here. The reason there is so little difference in the speeds is because they are already assuming congestion-pricing on the toll lanes. With congestion-pricing, the whole point is to vary the amount of the tool to make sure the express toll lanes remain free-flowing. The benefit to the general purpose lanes is that those who are in a hurry move over to the toll lanes and free up capacity in the general purpose lanes, allowing speeds to increase there as well. If the system is working as it should, there should be little difference between the Electronic Toll Lanes (ETLs) and the general purpose lanes.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room which you are totally missing is the dramatic improvements in travel speeds betwen Alternative 7A and the no-build option (7A was the best performing option of all, and includes both the lane widenings AND the CCT).

When I say dramatic, I mean dramatic: A 61% reduction in congested lane miles, and several segments that move from stop and go conditions at 5 mph (without the widening) to freeway speeds of 55 mph and above (with the new lanes). This is what really jumps out of the traffic studies, you guys are all mis-interpreting the data.

Another key point has to do with transit service, both through the length of the CCT alignment from Shady Grove to Clarksburg, and from Clarksburg north to Frederick. The new lane capacity, especially in Atlernative 7A, which provides barrier-separated express lanes, allows you to vastly improve transit service throughout the corridor. With that new capacity, you can run fast express busses from Frederick all the way down to key points like Clarksburg, Germantown, Metropolitan Grove and Shady Grove. With this plus the more local service provided along the dedicated CCT alignment, to meet the local transit movements between Shady Grove and Clarksburg, you have a very effective and efficient transit system offering both local and express service. Without the extra lanes, forget about transit to Frederick, and you make "express bus" on 270 an oxymoron. And for those who have not been paying attention to the last two decades of studies on this point, rail to Frederick is not a viable option. Not now, not 20 years from now, not 40 years from now.

If you are serious about expanding transit service in this corridor, the plan the Council Committee approved is exactly the right move with one exception: They should have stood their ground for a light-rail CCT. The state is going to have new numbers this Fall which very well may boost the cost-effectiveness data enough to win federal approval for light-rail, and the full Council should hold firm and let us make our best case. The CCT New Starts submission is being delayed now anyway, so there is no downside to waiting for these numbers before throwing in the towel on light rail in the up-county.

The bottom line from this 270 corridor study is this: Travel conditions on most of I-270 will become virtually impassable without this project (in the no-build scenario many folks here seem to naively be advocating). The results clearly show that both the new lanes and the CCT are needed. This is why Roger Berliner (hardly a pro-highway kind of guy) and Nancy Floreen (a huge supporter of the CCT) voted the way they did -- which, I repeat, was driven by some very compelling data that many people posting to this blog have obviously never taken the time to read.

Floreen and Berliner have looked at the data, and when the rest of the Council do, the will likely vote the same (if they are being leaders, that is and making this decision on the merits. Well done, Roger and Nancy.

Travel times for everyone improve significantly, congestion is reduced thereby reducing wasted fuel and auto emissions, and

by Richard Parsons on Jul 17, 2009 3:48 pm • link • report

I don't see how the assumption that the paid lanes would travel the same speed as the free lanes could possibly be true. If that were the case, why would anyone pay?

What will likely happen is that the price will reflect the time savings from driving in the paid lanes.

So if they were the same speed, a lot of people will choose the free lanes because they save money. This will clog up the free lanes and make the paid lanes a little less crowded. Now the paid lanes will go faster, and some people will decide to pay to save time.

It's like performance parking. You want to adjust the price on the paid lanes so people don't travel below 45 mph but not keep them so high that the travel speed is in the 70s.

It may be that at first the extra highway capacity would make the price difference very low and the travel speeds would be comparable, but as more people clog up the highway that price is going to go up.

by Michael Perkins on Jul 17, 2009 4:02 pm • link • report

I agree with you about how the toll lanes will function. The point we're getting at is how much revenue the tolls will yield.

The toll is set at a level that fills the toll lane, but does not overcrowd it. If there are 4 free lanes and 2 toll lanes, the toll will be set at a level that 1/3 of the people are willing to pay but 2/3 don't want to or can't afford to pay. (That's a little oversimplified because the free lanes are more crowded, but it's close.)

How high will that level be? Specifically, how much would one third of the drivers be willing to pay to go 13 miles in 13 minutes instead of 14 minutes? My guess - only a guess - is less than one dollar each way. So the toll will be less than one dollar for the full 13 miles.

How much will it cost to collect the tolls? On the SR-91 express toll lanes in California, the most recent financial statement (see note 4, p. 14) shows that depreciation on the transponders used to collect tolls costs $1.3 million per year. That is 2.8% of the toll revenue, or (since the average rush-hour toll is $6) 17 cents per trip. However, the SR-71 toll lanes have only one entry point, and I-270 will have seven, so I-270 will need seven times as many transponders. 7 x 17 = $1.19 for a 13-mile trip.

So, paying for the transponders will cost $1.19 per trip, if you go the entire 13 miles. This is a big part of the cost of toll collection, but it is not all of it. I conclude that the cost of toll collection will be in the ballpark of $1.50 to $2 per trip.

I do not believe that 1/3 of the public will be willing to spend $1.50 to save one minute in their commute. If that is true, the toll revenue on I-270 will be less than the cost of collecting the tolls.

One final point - if SHA thinks that the toll revenue would contribute significantly to paying the cost of the highway, they owe the public an estimate of that revenue. Without cost information, we should not be making decisions. Because no revenue estimate has been offered, I believe that SHA does not expect tolls to yield significant net revenue.

by Ben Ross on Jul 17, 2009 4:44 pm • link • report

Sorry if that wasnÂ’t enough detail. Let me try to make it clearer: The traffic model that produces these speed estimates ALREADY assumes a variable priced toll for this Alternative, which is set at the price-point where the lane volumes on the toll lanes and the general purpose lanes is close to equilibrium. This is how they maximize usage of all available capacity.

This is the reason there is little difference in travel speeds in the model under Alternative 7A. The variability of the pricing is already factored in. You are trying to double-count the impact of toll pricing on people's decisions on which lane they choose.

Say you are at equilibrium and a bunch of people in the toll lanes realize the general purpose lanes are moving the same speed as they are. What happens? At the next exit point, a bunch of them might transition over to the free lanes to save money. What then happens to the travel speeds in the next highway segment? Now the express toll lanes are moving faster than the free lanes again.
This is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

The analysis above is way off the mark and has nothing to do with what this traffic study is telling you. Here is that key chart, which clearly shows the real story, which is the huge difference in travel speeds between no-build and build options.

by Richard Parsons on Jul 17, 2009 4:49 pm • link • report

Richard - I agree with you about how the system is supposed to work. The SHA models, I believe, assume equilibrium is reached. (Most drivers on this road in rush hour will be regular commuters who will know what traffic conditions to expect.)

The question is - how much revenue will the tolls raise? It depends on how congested the free lanes are. That's why private companies that build express toll lanes always insist on non-compete clauses, under which the government guarantees that competing free roads will be kept congested.

by Ben Ross on Jul 17, 2009 4:54 pm • link • report

Richard,
Any way you cut it, adding 2 traffic lanes in each direction of a highway is going to cut immediate congestion - hi-tech or not. So i think very few people would argue with you on that point. Rather what think most are concerned with are the consequences of this monster highway enlarged on the ecosystem of transit as a whole.

A 14-lane 270 will itself run more effectively, but the logjam is then pushed downstream, neccessitating:
The Beltway be 14 lanes
Montrose Road and other crossroads be widened
Feeder Roads onto Montrose ext. be widened.
More revenue-sucking parking required for development on Rockville Pike (land that could otherwise be residential, business, use etc.)
etc. etc.

In order for the holistic philosophy of HOT Lanes, or any "infinite highway lane widening" theory to work, feeder streams and retention catch basins for all the traffic it induces must in-turn be enlarged.

and all these improvements cost not only money, but create an environment (existing Rockville Pike, Route 1 south of Alexandria, etc.etc.) that no one really likes that much.

by stevek_fairfax on Jul 17, 2009 5:07 pm • link • report

Now that we have cleared that up, Ben's point about revenues is valid, but that is a level of detail that the State may not have gotten into yet. This is still the Draft Environmental Impact Stage, and there are years to go before a final decision is made on this project.

I do think the top posting above (which I notice has already been edited some) needs further editing to reflect the last couple comments, as it is clear that the comparison of these lane speeds is not a valid one. Being fairly new to this site, I don't know how often you do that or what your corrections policy is, so forgive me if this comes across as a naive question.

One more thing, while you're at it, the "sprawl and pollution" charge in your header is unfair as well as inaccurate. I could make just as convincing a case to you that this project prevents sprawl and reduces pollution. I am getting pretty tired of the "S-word" being tossed around willy nilly without much thought or analysis behind it. Yes, I am sure "the big S" is in the eye of the beholder, but are any of you aware of these facts?

1. I-270 is part of the interstate highway system and somewhere around 30-40% of the daily volume is interstate through-traffic just trying to get to the I-95 corridor and is not stopping anywhere in our region.

2. Most daily traffic is not commuting traffic. 75% of the daily volume on our roads is other trips (errands, recreation, shopping, movement of freight, etc.). The vast majority of these trips cannot be accomodated by transit because of the nature of the trips themselves, so any region needs a certain level of road capacity to handle them. The whole "sprawl" conversation assumes highways are only needed to move commuters from distant homes to urban workplaces, and that is manifestly not the case.

3. Many of the communities up and down I-270, all the way from Bethesda to Frederick, are already built up urban centers, or planned to become more walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented town centers once the CCT is built as far as Clarksburg. Why is an interstate connecting these already built-up areas, currently suffering from severe congestion, considered sprawl inducing? I could understand it if we were talking about a new highway leading out to the cornfields, but that is not the situation here.

These are already identified as "Priority Funding" or "smart growth" areas, they are already developed with varying levels of transit service either in place or planned, and Frederick is in a moratorium and downzoning every property they can, so where is the sprawl you are worried about supposed to happen? It can't be in the ag reserve (not allowed) or in the new town centers along the CCT (that is not sprawl), so where?

Also, why is connecting the job and populations centers together more efficiently such a bad idea, when we are faced with such severe congestion now? After all, widening existing roads to link priority funding areas together, and focus development in those corridors, is exactly what Maryland's landmark 1997 Smart Growth Act calls for regarding highway improvements. It is right there in the law.

by Richard Parsons on Jul 17, 2009 5:16 pm • link • report

Richard,

We could simply put congestion charges on the existing lanes and accomplish the same goal without spending $4 billion. FHWA published a paper saying that they thought doing that on 270 would push 5-10% of "discretionary" trips to other time periods and keep traffic flowing. That would also allow bus transit to use the freeway if desired.

The argument that HOT lanes on 270 is the only way to get traffic moving is only true if you assume that new lanes are the only possibility. It's like saying that scrambled eggs are the only way to eat an egg since your DEIS disregarded all of the other ways.

FHWA judged that 270 traffic would move fine if only that 5-10% of traffic moved off of it. Therefore, good MARC service that serves that many people would also be a fine way. So would other transit options.

I'm not enthusiastic about bus transit on 270 because it's hard for BRT to stop in all of the towns along the way without going fairly far out of the way. Building special express ramps for the buses is also remarkably expensive. Better to beef up transit that actually runs through the centers of Clarksburg, Germantown, Gaithersburg and Rockville. BRT is okay, but not the best solution, and for $4 billion in money the state won't get back either way, I'm confident there is a better way.

The State has not gotten into revenues because SHA is trying to ram more lanes down everyone's throat. We're a ways away from a final decision, but momentum is already building that becomes harder and harder to stop.

by David Alpert on Jul 17, 2009 5:28 pm • link • report

Richard - on what basis do you say that the vast majority of "errands , recreation, and shopping" cannot be accommodated by mass transit? That seems overly pessimistic. In NYC many people walk or use mass transit for non-"getting to work" activities all the time. Montgomery County is doing many things right to try to create a culture and built-environment where that is more possible. Inducing more traffic onto the feeder system now designed for a 12-lane 270 seems like a sure-fire way to disrupt these plans.

Also, if 30 to 40% of current daily volume is now thru-traffic, you seem to suggest that ALL of the new traffic would be thru-traffic, increasing its percentage to 50 to 60%? Rather I would think that the percentage would likely stay the same meaning that much of the new traffic would be local and exit onto ill-equipped catch basin roads and ill-equipped parking lots.

A 14 lane 270 would also mean that VA would eventually have to REDOUBLE its HOT Lane efforts and widen the beltway from the now under const 12 lanes to 14 lanes also.

I can see the logic in widening 270 to, say, 3 lanes up to Frederick, but a 14-lane MonsterHighway creates costly and insurmountable problems for the local feeder system. And if such a catch-basin /feeder stream road system is built, the width /speed of such roads will be completely incompatible with walkable/urban patterns Montgomery is trying to implement.

by stevek_fairfax on Jul 17, 2009 5:43 pm • link • report

Excuse me, 16 (SIXTEEN) lane MonsterHighway.

by stevek_fairfax on Jul 17, 2009 5:51 pm • link • report

Steve, some good points, but I am not convinced that that your theory is correct. In a region of 5.5 million people, which all experts expect to continue growing over time, and with one of the lowest numbers of highway lane miles per capita of any major metro area in the country, why is it unreasonable to selectively add either HOV/HOT or managed toll lanes to provide capacity in the existing corridors that need it most?

There is an integrated network of HOV/HOT lanes envisioned for our region and already happening in Virginia, and we would all benefit from linking up with that network so ten years from now we can still feel like we are part of the region we all live in. Economically, we have to.

I am not convinced that fixing some of our worst traffic problems, and building both the road and transit connections we need, will have any negative impacts or prompt any further widening of some of the areas you mentioned in Montgomery County, with which I am quite familiar because I live here. Assuming you are from Fairfax, you may not know this, but the areas around Montrose Road and the entire Beltway here are already almost completely built-out, so the only new development there will be minor and primarily infill.

I donÂ’t see how the demand picture for access to the regional highway network from any of these areas will change much by adding a couple of toll lanes to 270 or across the American Legion Bridge. Sorry, but I just donÂ’t buy the critique you raise.

No one is talking about any kind of “infinite highway lane widening” and I don't think that is a realistic fear. But I think it is unrealistic to think a growing region, starting out with such a huge deficit in road and transit capacity (relative to demand), can continue to grow for another 20 years without ever widening or adding any new highway, ever, which seems to be the prevailing ideology around here.

To me, transportation policy is not about ideology, it is about what is needed and what works. That can be transit, or roads, or changing community design standards, but in almost all cases it requires some combination of all of the above.

by Richard on Jul 17, 2009 5:56 pm • link • report

Richard: The whole 355 corridor from the Nicholson Lane area up to Shady Grove is ripe for TOD. The White Flint plan only covers a portion of this. While the Metro is not exactly in the right place--that could be fixed with a decent circulator system. Let's learn a little something from Arlington where traffic levels are approximately the same as they were 30 years ago--with no major new highways.

by kreeggo on Jul 17, 2009 7:46 pm • link • report

David Alpert- mike: This blog wasn't around when Virginia was approving the HOT lanes.

me- This blog started in 2003 check the archives.

VDOT- Approved HOT Lane Widening on January 20th, 2005.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/northern_virginia/2005/ctb_approves_12-lane_alternative15679.asp

by mike on Jul 18, 2009 4:03 am • link • report

kreeggo- Let's learn a little something from Arlington where traffic levels are approximately the same as they were 30 years ago--with no major new highways.

me- What would be the point of Arlington building anymore New Highways since Arlington has Two Major North/South(I-395) and East/West(I-66) Interstate Highways along with a Major Parkway(G-W) and Three(US 1, VA 110, and US 50) Semi-Mix Highway/Boulevard.

As small as Arlington is there would be no need for more New Highways except for widening the existing Highways in which VDOT wants to do with I-66 and I-395.

BTW- Its not easy to compare Arlington with Montgomery County since Arlington is alot Smaller than Montgomery County plus Arlington is viewed more of a Urban City Distric than it is as a County sort of like Brooklyn(Kings County), Queens(Queens County), and The Bronx(Bronx County).

by mike on Jul 18, 2009 4:20 am • link • report

mike: The blog launched in February 2008. Before that, I had written some occasional articles on my personal blog, which I copied over. The archives page explains that clearly. In 2005, I was still living in NYC, and there are no articles about either Maryland or NoVA.

by David Alpert on Jul 18, 2009 11:15 am • link • report

kreego: I guess I-66 isn't a major highway...

by Froggie on Jul 18, 2009 2:38 pm • link • report

Froggie: Sorry--27 years not 30.

by kreeggo on Jul 18, 2009 9:53 pm • link • report

kreeggo: I-395(before 1975 it was I-95) is also a Major Highway that was built through Arlington and Alexandria Over 30 Years Ago.

I-395 is the Top Busy Major Urban Dense City Highway in the DC/Arlington area that resembls closely to the Busy Expressways(Cross Bronx(I-95), Brooklyn-Queens(I-278), Long Island(I-495), Van Wyke(I-678), and Major Deagan(I-87)) that Passes through most of New York City.

by mike on Jul 19, 2009 6:17 am • link • report

David Alpert says: "FHWA judged that 270 traffic would move fine if only that 5-10% of traffic moved off of it. Therefore, good MARC service that serves that many people would also be a fine way. So would other transit options."

David, aren't you missing an induced demand issue here? If 5-10% of current I-270 users switched to MARC, then that would improve improve traffic speeds on I-270, inducing more trips and significantly offsetting the MARC switchers.

Not that a MARC expansion is a bad idea, but I'd think that induced demand should be a problem for reducing highway congestion with transit, just like it's a problem for reducing highway congestion with more lanes. The only reliable way I see to speed up I-270 is to charge people for their peak-hour road use.

by Josh B on Jul 19, 2009 9:47 am • link • report

...which won't happen until Congress changes the laws on such...

by Froggie on Jul 19, 2009 1:19 pm • link • report

Mike: I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was in response to Rich Parsons that there wasn't much room in Montgomery for growth and that growth would have to take place further out. My point was that the Rockville Pike corridor in Montgomery County was ripe for transit-oriented development provided a decent circulator system was added. Elements of such a circulator system would be frequent bus and/or streetcar service and new/improved parallel roads (not highways) through the corridor. I was pointing out the Arlington added very dense development along the Metrorail corridor without adding to traffic on Arlington streets. They also did so without displacing single family homes or increasing traffic on Arlington's primary and secondary roads. Traffic levels today, with all the growth in Arlington, are very close to what existed 25-30 years ago.

by kreeggo on Jul 19, 2009 1:21 pm • link • report

Kreeggo: I'm not sure how you got the impression that was my point, because that was not it at all. There is plenty of room for additional growth and especially TOD in Montgomery County, but my point is that our County doesn't stop at Montrose Road. Yes, the Rockville Pike/270 corridor is ripe for TOD and re-development, but that also includes the auto-dependent office parks up through Gaithersburg and Germantown along the proposed CCT alignment.

Mike: you make a good point about Arlington not really being analogous to Montgomery County, which is definitely true, but I believe Arlington also has more highway lane miles per capita and per acre than most of Montgomery County, yes great transit access and new urbanist design too, but they did a good job of keeping things in balance, which is all I am suggesting. There is no simplistic silver bullet out there.

FYI - You guys who think MARC service can fix 270's congestion problems, better think again. Traffic studies show no such thing going back at least 10 years and there is no capacity (or apparently sufficient demand) for expansion of service on CSX's tracks.

by Richard on Jul 20, 2009 11:19 am • link • report

There is no 14 lane highway anywhere in Arlington so this talk of balance is crazy. MARC could be made much better if the DOT didn't have such a highway centric view of things.

by NikolasM on Jul 20, 2009 11:37 am • link • report