Do "we have to do something" about traffic but not transit?

Roads

Do "we have to do something" about traffic but not transit?

by David Alpert • October 26, 2009 12:21 pm

Why do many of our leaders in suburban jurisdictions see new roads as necessary and inevitable, but new transit as difficult and unlikely?

Photo by shawnblog.

I've been meeting with elected officials in the region about transportation and development issues. One representative from Montgomery County recently expressed a general sentiment among area leaders that "we have to do something" to accommodate increased traffic between the American Legion Bridge and I-270. After all, Virginia is building HOT lanes that will bring more cars onto the Beltway, and Maryland is pushing for more lanes on 270 north of Rockville. Logically, this person said, the state and the county will probably have to connect the two with additional HOT lanes through Potomac and Bethesda.

Later in the conversation, when discussing Gaithersburg West, I noted the potential for biotech development at White Oak. That location is already a life sciences hub. It's closer to both DC and Baltimore, reducing the likely commutes for people working there versus Gaithersburg West. It's also in a part of Montgomery County with far fewer jobs than people, unlike the 270 corridor.

What it lacks, like Gaithersburg West, is good transit. There is an inactive proposal to build a Purple Line spur up New Hampshire or Route 29 to the area. Why not revive the idea? When I brought it up, the representative jokingly said something like, "I'd like some of what you're smoking." And in fact, with many transit projects including the Purple Line, Baltimore Red Line, and Corridor Cities Transitway already vying for funds, it would be very difficult to add a Purple Line spur to White Oak.

That's the conventional wisdom among most elected officials. We "have to do something" to add road capacity. But transit projects are so difficult as to be nearly laughable. Yet freeway projects are not cheap. As we saw from ACT's alternative plan for the I-270 corridor, you can build a lot of transit for the price of some freeway lanes. It's just that leaders are too accustomed to viewing road capacity as a necessity and transit as a luxury.

Sure, more people drive today than take transit along those routes. In fact, virtually nobody takes transit between Tysons Corner and Bethesda for the simple reason that there isn't any. But transportation expansion, whether roads or transit, will primarily serve new commuters, not the existing ones. If no new jobs or housing were coming to our region, we wouldn't be worried about HOT lanes, Purple Lines, or anything else. The current roads and rails move the people who move today. The new infrastructure we build will govern the locations and modes of new commuter growth. If we choose transit, we'll get new transit riders.

Besides, why don't we "have to do something" about Metro crowding? The Metro system is very crowded during rush hours, particularly along the Red and Orange Lines in the Favored Quarter. The Beltway is very crowded around there, too, as are I-66 and I-270. Yet for some reason, leaders talk about "having" to add more car capacity, but not about how we absolutely need to put in more tracks on the Metro or build transit across the Potomac. Why?

When our region adds auto capacity in one place, it creates bottlenecks in another place. Growth in western Fairfax is creating bottlenecks on I-66 through Arlington. The HOT lanes will create a bottleneck at the American Legion Bridge. When the automatic reaction of officials is simply to plan another capacity increase down the line, we start a chain reaction that never ends.

The ICC was "necessary" to get people from Prince George's County to jobs along 270. Then, now that there was going to be a freeway to the Gaithersburg West area, it's "critical" to upzone that for even more jobs. Next, since there was going to be so much job growth there, it becomes essential to widen I-270 to the north. Once there are lanes there and in Virginia, we "have to" add more across the Potomac.

Outer freeway proposals. Image from Blueprint For a Better Region.

Where does it stop? Loudoun County is now planning even more freeways and expressways up to 10 lanes wide crisscrossing their county, so they can fill in every acre with single-family houses. Where will everyone work? Before long, we'll not only "have to" widen I-66 again and again, but build another freeway crossing through Potomac between the ICC and Dulles—the "western bypass" that road boosters in Virginia have never stopped pushing. Or how about two western bypasses?

Montgomery voters strongly oppose a freeway through Potomac, but they oppose new lanes on the Beltway as well, and leaders are saying we "have to" build it anyway. Maybe this generation of elected officials has no interest in that, but what will happen when the 12- and 14-lane I-270 and Beltway are hopelessly congested?

Leaders are supposed to lead. They are the ones who should be looking to the future and working toward the best vision of the future. A region with three Beltways, with as much development north and west of Dulles Airport as south and east, where Frederick is part of the region's core and middle suburbs are in West Virginia, isn't where we should go. There's plenty of room for economic growth around Metro, inside the Beltway, at Tysons, Route 7 and Springfield in Fairfax, Shady Grove, White Flint, Silver Spring, Wheaton and White Oak in Montgomery, and at every Prince George's Metro station. Leaders in Maryland and Virginia just need to stop saying "we have to" build more freeways and big office parks at the edge of the region, and instead encourage infill development and expand our great transit infrastructure.

53 comments

Tags: Fairfax, Gaithersburg West, HOT lanes, I-270, ICC, Montgomery, Outer Beltway, Purple Line, roads, Virginia, White Oak

Gaithersbungle: Planning Board staff latest to ignore better way for Gaithersburg (Jun 29, 2009)
Three-Beltways boosters perpetuate myths about growth (May 24, 2010)
Gaithersbungle, part 6: What else $3.8 billion could buy, more specifically (Jul 29, 2009)
2010 wish list for transit (Dec 23, 2009)
On Tuesday, Montgomery Council can avoid "ICC 2.0" (Jul 16, 2009)

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
Add a comment »

Yea, but there's more people and money in the suburbs, so urbanists will lose as usual.

by MPC on Oct 26, 2009 12:45 pm • link • report

I was just thinking about something similar this morning. Please allow me a few stereotypes in the following.

One major problem with urban design is that sprawling counties tend to be republican because they tend to be rural when the decision for development is taken. The republican leaders then build roads and single family homes, because those are the cheap and easy solutions, and bring is a load of cash. Invariably, once all the single families have moved in, they discover that traffic is a mess, and demand transit and safer roads. Also, the new young families tend to be more democrats than republicans and out goes the republican leadership, and in comes the democratic leadership, which will then for years struggle (and be blamed) for the terrible traffic conditions.

We've seen this in Fairfax, MoCo, and it's on-going in Loundoun and PW County. Even in PG County, but I am less aware of what's going on there.

The questions is: How do we fix this?

---------------------------------------

Then, on the ring of beltways. What we need is a way to divert through traffic from I-95/495. The best way to do this is to upgrade US-301 to Interstate level. Traffic for points Baltimore and beyond can be diverted to US-301 form Fredericksburg and be fed into I-97 over MD-3 or US-50.

The problem is that Maryland NIMBYs this.

Alternatively, US-17 and US-15 could be upgraded. But again, MD opposes.

Virginia is de facto building these roads.

Roads are not inherently bad. They are a legitimate part of infrastructure. The problem for the DC area is that its mix of roads and transit is slanted way to far to roads. So that's what transit should be able to solve many problems.

Transit however, can not solve the problem of the volume of long distance traffic that comes through the DC area.

Paris had a similar problem and built an outer beltway WAY beyond Paris, and succeeded in taking most long distance traffic of the tiny and overcrowded Periferique.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Paris,+fr&sll=39.004552,-77.951385&sspn=0.109919,0.180588&g=Paris&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Paris,+%C3%8Ele-de-France,+France&ll=48.837605,2.373047&spn=0.372405,0.722351&z=11

Initially, everybody declared the project one of those typical French megalomaniac projects wasting money on job creation and nothing else. But in the end, it has led to a pretty good separation of local Parisian and long distance traffic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francilienne

by Jasper on Oct 26, 2009 12:46 pm • link • report

@Jasper: I admit I haven't followed the "new Potomac River" highway crossing in Montgomery County debate very closely lately since there is no political support in MD for it. But, I thought that MD always favored upgrading the Route 15 crossing at Point of Rocks to divert through traffic from I-270/I-495 and as an alternative to any new highway crossing. Did I miss something?

by kreeggo on Oct 26, 2009 1:01 pm • link • report

*dreams of a Metro with 3 tracks and an outter ring*

by James on Oct 26, 2009 1:01 pm • link • report

The reason officials "see new roads as necessary and inevitable" is probably because people (voters) are invested in their cars and want to make the most of that investment by driving.

Cars are either the biggest or second biggest purchase most people will ever make in their lives. That's a substantial economic commitment. Voters want to see the government support their car purchases by building new or better roads.

By contrast, people who use public transit are not personally invested in it. They're just customers of a service. Being a Metro user just doesn't carry the same emotional weight as laying out tens of thousands of dollars to buy and maintain a car.

by Wright Bryan on Oct 26, 2009 1:04 pm • link • report

Its times like this that I wish this part of the country had smaller jurisdictions like we did in MI. There the inner suburbs put up such a NIMBY fight to widening freeways and arterials that they never get done. Here you have counties that go from urban DC neighbors to exurbs and near rural settings.

@james: I'm with you.

@Wright Brian: I own a car, but only because my job takes me to different parts of the region on a weekly basis. I yearn for the day that I could ride where I need to go and be able to read or nap or otherwise relax instead of getting angry because traffic sucks or some jerk with a diplomat plate just cut me off and ran a red light.

by dano on Oct 26, 2009 1:33 pm • link • report

I applaud GGW's constant attempts at persuasion, but the fact remains that auto-dependence is the current dominant transportation paradigm. With the vast majority of residents living that paradigm, it's only natural for political leaders to reflect the desires of those voters. Channel 7 news last night interviewed people in Montgomery County about the proposed ICC tolls and the respondents overwhelming viewed toll-free (or low-toll) travel as an entitlement.

I suspect that the portion of the population that actually lives near fast, frequent, useful and reliable transit service (from home to work) is actually pretty low.

It will take decades to change these transportation biases.

by Capitol Dome on Oct 26, 2009 1:35 pm • link • report

Wouldn't the purpose of an outer loop be to divert through traffic on 95? That seems like a good idea to me.

by jcm on Oct 26, 2009 1:39 pm • link • report

jcm, again, such an outer loop would get jammed up really quickly due to induced demand. That's why this obsession with new roads is crazy.

by Cavan on Oct 26, 2009 1:52 pm • link • report

Always remember: driving--and spending a couple of hours a day in an automobile--is normative behavior. Meanwhile, sure cyclists and subway riders exist, but aren't Real Americans.

</snark>

by ibc on Oct 26, 2009 1:54 pm • link • report

Although the good thing is that, regardless of what suburban jurisdictions decide to do, traffic will continue to get worse. The're just throwing money down the toilet. So the more they spend on roads, and the less they spend on transit, the more my inner-suburb property values increase.

Sorry, but there are times when you need to pack your own chute--there's only so much you can do to save willfully stupid, myopic people from themselves.

by ibc on Oct 26, 2009 1:58 pm • link • report

The problem with transit as an alternative to new lanes here is that orbital transit doesn't really work. Transit works great within dense cities, where people walk from their homes to transit, and from transit to work. It also works (but not as well) as commuter rail or commuter subway, where people drive to a station, park, ride, and then walk to their offices. It doesn't work well at all if your office isn't walking distance from a transit station, or if you have to change to a shuttle bus to get from a train to your office.

How would people use transit between Bethesda and Tysons? Some people could walk to their offices from logical transit stations in these places, but unlike in downtown DC, a huge share of offices aren't conveniently accessible. That's especially true when you consider other key office locations, like Merrifield, Reston and Herndon. And if you work in Tysons and can afford to live in downtown Bethesda, you probably don't live in downtown Bethesda; you live somewhere that's more convenient to Tysons. Most of these drivers probably have commutes that don't lend themselves well to a mode shift to transit, even if you build expensive new transit infrastructure. If you live in a cheaper place in Montgomery and work along the Dulles Toll Road, new transit isn't going to help you much.

The problem is that we've made these sorts of orbital commutes necessary in the first place. A key driver behind that need is the artificial limits we place on development in the urban core, which already has excellent transit access from within DC and key points outside. It would be much more cost effective to abolish the height limit and shift more commutes into downtown DC than to try to graft rail transit onto a fundamentally suburban style of development.

by Josh B on Oct 26, 2009 1:59 pm • link • report

A few notes, mainly in reply to Cavan's comment:

- Some level of induced demand is already factored into traffic forecasts when a given road is studied.

- Limiting interchanges to major cross roads would reduce the development pressure. Of course, having effective zoning policy would handle the development pressure/issues regardless of the number of interchanges involved.

- More roads with fewer lanes operates more efficiently than fewer roads with more lanes...a similar argument to the one given by urbanists regarding urban street grids. Cavan and I had this discussion at the GGW birthday party.

- Related to the above, not having an effective bypass for through traffic means we have to upgrade routes such as I-95. But of course, improving I-95 for through traffic also makes that route a more popular commute route. With an effective bypass for through traffic, I-95 traffic issues would moreso become commuter driven, which can be addressed via other means.

- The Paris example that Jasper cited suggests that it's doable, even for cities with an already large transit system (and several of you have often favorably cited the Paris system in the past).

by Froggie on Oct 26, 2009 2:19 pm • link • report

How Bizarre that an elected official would laugh off a perfectly reasonable idea like extending a light rail line to a potential jobs hub. This points to a lack of imagination on behalf of many suburban elected officials about land development and transportation. But one has to wonder about all the political contributions developers make as well. The other elephant in the room is the old "density = crime" idea that still lingers.

by stevek_fairfax on Oct 26, 2009 2:22 pm • link • report

Remember that the existing beltway was supposed to be the bypass for through traffic. How'd that work out?

If you build a new bypass, it will just become a new beltway.

End the madness. Build towns and cities, not highways and car-slave oil guzzling neverlands.

The current course is just a dog chasing its tail. It's a downward spiral to environmental and economic ruin.

by Cavan on Oct 26, 2009 2:25 pm • link • report

It would be nice if I could get to my job in Bethesda from Reston without going into metro center on the Metro. The fact that there is no transit between Virginia and Maryland just is hard to understand.

The daily congestion between Tyson's and I270 on the beltway should be an indication to our traffic "planners" that a greater utilization of the highways is necessary.

I am not advocating for a rail line, (I want to see a solution before I retire) but an express bus that travels in restricted lanes would do the trick.

by weary straphanger on Oct 26, 2009 2:27 pm • link • report

@weary straphanger

I agree. I live in Arlington at Clarendon and work in Bethesda and I take the Metro all the time. It's ridiculous that I can't just ride out to East Falls Church and take another leg of transit up to Bethesda or Medical Center.

by James on Oct 26, 2009 2:44 pm • link • report

Another solution is to make choices of where you want to concentrate economic activity. Many of the larger cities in the world have recognized that not all of their economic activity can be in their city center. A lot of them have chosen areas that were on the perifery for development and directed business there. They provided excellent connections with the "old" downtown and created new ones within the same metropolis.

That is what Fairfax is trying to do with Tysons, and what Arlington did with Rosslyn-Ballston. A problem we have here in DC is that we have umpteen jurisdiction that are all competing with each other.

by Jasper on Oct 26, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report

Cavan: remember the cancellation of freeways within the District? As a result, the Beltway became not just a through traffic route but a local traffic route as well.

Your argument makes a better case for a major rehab of zoning regulations than it does for not building a bypass.

by Froggie on Oct 26, 2009 3:31 pm • link • report

@Froggie: because induced demand is factored into design doesn't mean that it solves the problem. Its still there and its still more cars.

I don't know how many times I have been reminded of 'Field of Dreams' while reading this blog...

by dano on Oct 26, 2009 3:50 pm • link • report

Remember there was a reason why the highways inside the District and inside the Beltway in Maryland were cancelled. The experience in SW DC were too scarring. Why should we flatten existing human settlements so that new ones can be built in an inconvenient location and require their residents to sink lots of money into cars?

In an ideal world, your point about zoning regulations would suffice. However, the existence of a shiny new highway makes such wishes moot in the real world. The only way to keep your zoning regulations intact are to have no entrances/exits. That is just not politically feasible. Whoever gets their land paved over for the road will at least want highway access. The access will cause car-dependent sprawl.

It's a tale that's been told and retold over the past six decades in our region and around the country.

by Cavan on Oct 26, 2009 3:56 pm • link • report

It's ridiculous that I can't just ride out to East Falls Church and take another leg of transit up to Bethesda or Medical Center.

I agree. It's completely ridiculous that each piece of infrastructure isn't completely tailor-made and suited to my needs.

by MPC on Oct 26, 2009 3:58 pm • link • report

@MPC

My point was more that I'm shocked there aren't more connections between VA and MD.

by James on Oct 26, 2009 4:02 pm • link • report

@ James: You should rephrase that. There are no connections between MD and VA as far as WMATA is concerned. None. Will have to go through the district.

by Jasper on Oct 26, 2009 4:17 pm • link • report

@James

Why should you be shocked?

When the system was planned, I'm going to guess that most of the jobs were in the District proper, and that there wasn't too much commuting from one suburb to another.

by MPC on Oct 26, 2009 4:21 pm • link • report

Loudoun County is now planning even more freeways and expressways up to 10 lanes wide crisscrossing their county, so they can fill in every acre with single-family houses. Where will everyone work?

More and more jobs will move out that way. Remember that Tysons itself was once a sleepy crossroads. Now Fairfax County has more jobs than the District has. Fairfax County is becoming the new center of economic activity and DC residents ought to get used to it.

by Capitol Dome on Oct 26, 2009 4:25 pm • link • report

the reason it's expensive to build transit is the same reason it's expensive to build roads - capital labor costs for construction - they keep rising well ahead of inflation, therefore there's no way West VA will ever become "middle suburbs" regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter

beyond that, this idea that transit is always preferable to roads is silly and misguided, and makes it difficult for real debate, moreover, companies decide where they want to locate, not political leaders

by David on Oct 26, 2009 4:54 pm • link • report

Capitol Dome, it's not quite that simplistic. Tysons has been stagnant while the District, the R-B corridor, Bethesda and Silver Spring have been accomodating more and more jobs and people and economic growth. The reason? Tysons ability to move people is limited by its car-dependent infrastructure. Not so with the walkable places.

If Tysons was still growing, why would Fairfax County be so eager for the Silver Line to give them a mulligan with Tysons (which it looks like they're going to screw up)?

by Cavan on Oct 26, 2009 4:56 pm • link • report

"Remember there was a reason why the highways inside the District and inside the Beltway in Maryland were cancelled. The experience in SW DC were too scarring. Why should we flatten existing human settlements so that new ones can be built in an inconvenient location and require their residents to sink lots of money into cars? "

Pure emotionalism. Later designs for the not yet built portions of the Inner Loop were tunnels, such as the cross town I-66 tunnel beneath K Street.

Stopping the freeways meant stopping the better designed segments while doing nothing about the earlier deigns that scar the landscape (and which Cavan favors keeping- aka the SW Freeway bridges instead of NCPC's recent I-395 SW Freeway Tunnel proposal).

It also provided a convenient distraction from the $$$ wasted on the Pentagon's wars and the criminal mercantilism drug war, with its mythology of transit having to be funded by canceling highways, particularly highways that run alongside and through properties of entities with WAY TOO MUCH INFLUENCE for our good.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/05/telling-deletion.html

by Douglas A. Willinger on Oct 26, 2009 5:05 pm • link • report

Everything changes when oil is 150 dollars a barrel, which it will be. And soon enough.

by JTS on Oct 26, 2009 5:12 pm • link • report

Douglas, I feel that you misrepresented my stance on the Southeast/Southwest freeway. I have been in favor of tearing down the elevate portions of that highway and returning it to Virginia and Maryland Avenues for as long as I've been involved with smart growth. That has not changed.

I am still against turning it into a tunnel because of cost and the fact that a tunnel would spew traffic onto human-scale neighborhood streets just as much as the current elevated structure. Net effect is equally bad.

by Cavan on Oct 26, 2009 5:12 pm • link • report

Single person auto will dominate transport well into the future in our area, gasoline prices have absolutely no impact. Autos generate vast economic activity from the gas tax, titling fees, sales taxes, repair costs, tolls, etc. That is direct revenue to state coffers that help offset the costs of roads, trails, and rails that those drivers may or may not use. Transit users only pay a fraction of the cost of each ride. Transit is effective if TOD follows it (Arlington/MoCo) but inefficient and poor use of resources if not (PG). All of the regionÂ’s new road systems will be toll-backed. The ICC will eventually pay for itself just as I-95 has, and future toll revenue will be utilized to build the next generation in infrastructure, including the EASTERN BYPASS which diverts through traffic from DC and minimizes the regionÂ’s western sprawl. Only Virginia special interests want a Western Bypass which will fuel the next generation sprawl with Dulles Airport at its epicenter. Road projects are good, but they must be the RIGHT road projects. Road projects can pay for themselves, there are even corporations and mutual funds that invest or operate them. Transit is not self-sufficient, even when at capacity (WMATA), and requires the patience of government subsidy to operate. That doesn't mean that toll roads can be made to finance transit or special taxing districts around future transit stations can't result in self-supporting transit infrastructure.

by Cyrus on Oct 26, 2009 8:29 pm • link • report

About the Maryland-Virginia bus links, they both died due to lack of ridership. Metrobus route 14 ran between Bethesda and Tysons Corner, used express lanes and, with permission, shoulders. This was not enough to generate passengers.

The other crossing was covered by the N11/N13. Originally, the N11 ran between Branch Ave. and King St. nonstop, but, due to poor connectivity with the rest of the system, it failed. It simply took longer to ride the bus than to ride Metrorail. It was revised to run as the N11 from Bramch Ave. to King St. via Oxon Hill Rd. and the Oxon Hill park and ride to draw PTO workers. That direction failed. The N13 ran from King St. to Suitland to serve the Suitland Federal Center. It died due to lack of publicity.

by Chuck Coleman on Oct 26, 2009 8:46 pm • link • report

Cavan:

Let me refresh your memory- comments at:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-i-395-gateway-if-its-coordinated.html

by Douglas Willinger on Oct 26, 2009 9:16 pm • link • report

@Chuck: I had brought this up on a different forum and the 14's died for an assortment of other reasons. While Maryland allowed using buses on shoulders, Virginia did not which created problems. Another problem is that there was/is no real park-and-ride on the Virginia side for which to draw passengers (Westpark doesn't have much parking). The 14's worked for MD-to-Tysons but was a pain for the reverse. Rumor had it that Metro would revisit the route once the HOT lanes are built on the Virginia side as it would solve the no shoulders problem and the buses could transition from HOT lanes to the shoulders.

As for the N11/N13, the Wilson Bridge reconstruction gave them a convenient excuse to kill the route with similar "promises" to revisit the route once the bridge reconstruction was complete. Since it is pretty much complete and since there also is a good mid-point (National Harbor), I think the "current" NH1 via Branch Ave should be routed across the bridge to King St when the "old" NH1 is reactivated to Southern Ave (or the reverse and do a Southern Ave-National Harbor-King St routing).

Once the early portion of the Silver Line with its ample parking gets settled and the HOT lanes are finished, I would put money on there being some sort of Bethesda-Tysons-Wiehle Ave route possibly going onto Dulles at the outset. It'd create a better transfer for Red Line passengers to Dulles than what currently exists for the 5A at least.

by Jason on Oct 27, 2009 9:11 am • link • report

The suburbs are automobile-centric, and I think itÂ’s hard to imagine that changing for the vast majority of the population out there. Do you really think youÂ’d be able to cover that large area with metro and light rail stations? Do you think people would be willing to put up with buses that 1) have to stop at every corner to pick people up or drop them off, and 2) fight traffic and stop lights, which work together to make long bus trips over short distances?

To make things harder, I think itÂ’s really hard to imagine a public transportation system that is extensive enough to convince people to not have cars at all. Pretty much everyone would at least have cars to run errands. So, the public transportation system somehow has to be better than driving. The two standard ways to measure that are cost and time. Without subsidies, the metro is actually pretty expensive. In general, I think itÂ’s going to be tough to beat the cost of driving, when you donÂ’t consider fixed costs (car payment, insurance, etc.), which is fair because people will have their cars either way. Even after taking into account subsidies and parking, I think itÂ’s hard to imagine public transit being significantly cheaper. Time would be difficult to beat out in the Â‘burbs too. Anything beyond what we already cover with Metro is only likely to be covered with a series of transfers. Either bus/metro transfers or light-rail/metro transfers. Those will make things slow. ItÂ’s sort of a testament to how awful roads are that as many people take the metro as they do.

While I think itÂ’s important to improve public transportation, even in the outer suburbs, I think itÂ’s hard to imagine making a whole lot of progress with current developments. I think we need to try to concentrate new, high-density developments near metro stations, and do a better job linking them. Then, once there are a few dense areasThereÂ’s an awful lot of wasted space around the Twinbrook and White Flint stations. Public transit will help limit traffic from the new people that could move into developments around those stations, but isnÂ’t going to do much to reduce traffic from the homes that are already there.

IÂ’m not sure what kind of public transportation system youÂ’re imagining outside the beltway. Even NYCÂ’s transit system gets pretty thin once you get 12 miles out.

by Andy R on Oct 27, 2009 10:19 am • link • report

The way to fix the suburbs is to make public transit fare-free in the city. As ridership increases, political power of transit riders will increase. Urban autos will lose clout and incrementally can be excluded from urban space. The city will be more attractive. More families will live there. Eventually transit will reach critical mass and the back of the auto system will be broken. The burbs will contract back into towns and the coal-burning mcmansions can be recycled back to organic farms.

by fpteditors on Oct 27, 2009 10:19 am • link • report

@ Andy: What you need is a system of hubs around metro, VRE and MARC stations, that are fed by extensive bus systems that go the entire day. Currently, I live in a burb closer to a VRE station than a metro station, yet there is no transit connection to the station, while a walk would take more than an hour. as for a bus, I only have a rush hour connection to metro.

No wonder I have to keep my car. And once people have a car, they will drive it.

I truly wish there was a late night bus, so I could go party in DC and still take metro/bus home.

by Jasper on Oct 27, 2009 12:40 pm • link • report

Jasper: Your second comment sums up the major problem: "once people have a car, they will drive it." You're never going to make the suburbs outside the beltway pleasant to live in without a car. Particularly for families. You might be able to make most of the area inside the beltway pleasant without a car, but not the area outside the beltway.

Consider the area involved. The beltway circles downtown at about a 10 mile radius. That's about 314 square miles of area, a fair amount of it being pretty densely populated. To go out to around Gaithersburg is another 10 miles. The area between 10-20 miles from the center of town is about 942 square miles. So, you're looking at 3 times the area, with a lower population density. You're not going to cover that area with metro or light rail stations, so about your only option is buses. But, things are spread out in the 'burbs, there are lots of stops, and there's still a lot of traffic. So, as anyone that takes buses knows, it takes forever to get anywhere on one. Then, you also have to add transfer time and metro time (and maybe another transfer and bus time) if you're going very far. It adds up.

So, most people outside the beltway will have cars. You might be able to reduce the number of people with cars in urbanish areas like Rockville Town Center, but there are all those single family homes in the suburbs that aren't going anywhere and are never going to be conveniently connected to public transit. And, even to the extent that you can make it more public transit friendly, it's probably just going to be friendly to commuters. So, for everything that isn't commuting, you're going to really want a car. Which gets us back to your point, that "once people have a car, they will drive it."

I fully support spending money on public transit. I think it should be a national priority. And I think we should concentrate future development in areas that have good access to public transit. But, in the case of this area, I also think we need more roads just to deal with the people we already have.

by Andy R on Oct 27, 2009 2:23 pm • link • report

dano said....Its times like this that I wish this part of the country had smaller jurisdictions like we did in MI. There the inner suburbs put up such a NIMBY fight to widening freeways and arterials that they never get done. Here you have counties that go from urban DC neighbors to exurbs and near rural settings.

Tom- MI is one of the Worst Fincial Depressed State in the Country. I guess you want Suburban MD to have the same Trgic Fate with no New Highways and No Highway Improvements. Sorry if Virginia continues to improve highways and build new ones then Maryland shall do the same.

by Tom on Oct 27, 2009 7:07 pm • link • report

Cavan said... jcm, again, such an outer loop would get jammed up really quickly due to induced demand. That's why this obsession with new roads is crazy.

Tom- Maybe to you its crazy to Millions of others don't see it that way.

by Tom on Oct 27, 2009 7:11 pm • link • report

Tom, remember that there is a different between facts and opinions. Facts don't cease being facts regardless of how many of your (capitalized) millions think so.

by Cavan on Oct 27, 2009 11:47 pm • link • report

Brilliant analysis. Thanks a lot, David.

At some point, we just need to kick the habit and restrict land use.

by Hellmut on Oct 28, 2009 11:41 am • link • report

Let other people build their roads and subsequently sit in traffic. People choose to live in these situations already. People who want walkable communities will move to them.

by Capitol Dome on Oct 28, 2009 12:06 pm • link • report

@ Andy: It is bogus that buses are slower (than what?). Buses tend to move just as fast as regular traffic, unless you make them stop every two blocks or so. Every five is plenty. On top of that, buses can be given all kinds of perks to make them move faster. Special lanes near traffic lights. Traffic lights that go green when a bus shows up. This is not complex technology. Queue lanes come at the cost of a bucket of paint. Traffic lights that react to apporaching buses have been around for decades.

The most important thing though is that *there are buses* that bring people somewhere. The problem is that there are no buses in many suburbs. So people drive. What else are they supposed to do?

Get a bus going and people will use it. My bus is a rush hour only bus. If it would run late at night on Fridays and Saturdays, I would use it. Later buses on weeknights would allow me to work downtown until after 6h15. I know there are people on the line that would like it to run all during the day because they only work part-time and have to wait for it. In short, there is a proven customer base for extended operation. And what does the county do? They propose to cut the line (and didn't do it).

The problem is that most bus providers do not think with or for their customers. They barely think at all. They are mandated to run certain buses on a barely acceptable budget that is under constant threat of being reduced by local politicians. That is not a good way to create customer loyalty and service.

The weird thing is that cutting bus lines is accepted practice in transit land. When is the last time you heard a road being closed "because it was too expensive to maintain"?

by Jasper on Oct 28, 2009 12:33 pm • link • report

Jasper: Buses are slower than other forms of public transportation, and, in most cases, driving. It's slower than driving because of all of those stops. I agree we don't need stops every block, but that's what we have in a lot of places- at least around me in MD and what I've seen in DC. And it's pretty unpopular to get rid of them.

And, driving around on local roads on in the 'burbs, buses aren't going to get a lot of benefits over cars. They're not going to be driving on shoulders because there aren't any. Timing lights can help a bit, but for the most part buses are either going to get stuck on ugly roads like 355 like the rest of the vehicles, or they will move pretty smoothly through less busy roads where cars will move pretty smoothly too.

So, even in the best case, buses will move perhaps slightly faster than cars, due to preferential treatment at stops. But, that's only if the bus is going straight to wherever you want to go, without doing any transfers. Do you think you're going to over 1000 square miles of space only by having hubs and transfer points at metro stations? The only way you could ever cover that area is by having circuitous routes and hubs in the middle nowhere.

And, of course, the more people ride buses, the more often they'll have to stop, which slows them down even more.

And again, I think it's really hard to imagine a bus system that will provide a good level of service during off-peak hours. There isn't going to be a lot of people riding a bus out in the 'burbs in the middle of the day during the week, or pretty much any time on the weekend. Sure, some people would ride it, and even more would like to ride it. But, the schedules would have to be pretty sparse due to the low number of riders, making it less convenient, causing many of those people to decide to just drive.

What are you imaging? An extensive enough bus network with frequent service that people will get rid of their cars? Do you really think intra-suburb and inter-suburb transit times can be reduced relative to cars for non-commuting trips?

by Andy R on Oct 28, 2009 2:57 pm • link • report

@ Andy: Do you really think DC is unique in that way? Is it that different from London? Paris? The Randstad in the Netherlands? Ruhr in Germany? All those areas is pretty comparable in area, population, national pride, congestion and transit. And all of them have more trains, more trams, more metro, and wayyy more buses than DC.

It is a matter of doing it. Just take that 4 billion for the I-270 expansion and put it in transit. And see what happens.

by Jasper on Oct 28, 2009 4:01 pm • link • report

Jasper: Unless I'm mistaken, those areas don't have a lot of metro/tram stations past the 10 mile point. Depending on the city/system, there are some, but not that much more than what DC has. I don't know enough about the cities to know where people are traveling, what kinds of transit times they experience, what transit times they're willing to put up with, how dependent they are on cars once you get outside the core public transportation area, etc.

What claims are you making? It looks like there are lots of cars 10 miles from the center of London and Paris. Are you saying lots of people (most?) out there take public transportation to work? To run errands? Are you saying that's faster than driving in those places?

As I said, I'm still curious what you're imagining for the suburbs of DC. And I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific than saying whatever London or Paris have, because 1)I'm not an expert on their systems 2) What I've been able to learn suggests public transit at 10 miles out isn't as convenient as you're suggesting, and 3) I'm not convinced people in this area would necessarily be willing to put up with whatever Londoners or Parisians have to. You can get more people to use public transportation here if you just make the roads bad enough, I'm just not convinced that's a good way to go.

Please tell me if I'm wrong about something. I'm no expert, so I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong about these things. But, I'd like to know what you're saying I'm wrong about. Or, even if you just want to point me to something to read, I'll read it.

by Andy R on Oct 28, 2009 5:28 pm • link • report

But, to directly answer one of your questions, on whether I think DC is unique, I think the answer is basically yes. I think transportation in American culture is dominated by cars. The default mode of transportation will be car unless there's compelling reason to take something else. Maybe I'm making a gross generalization here, but I don't get the same impression in other countries. As a result, I think public transportation has to be noticeably "better" than transportation by car in order to be used.

by Andy R on Oct 28, 2009 5:33 pm • link • report

@ Andy: My core point is that it is not impossible. Yes, American culture is dominated by cars. Yes, that is possible because Americans are still building their cities, while Europe's cities have been around forever. However, they have adapted. They incorporated transit all over the place. Despite old ruins, historic sites, and uniques vistas.

So, yes things are possible. And people will use transit.

And yes, the outskirts of Rotterdam have trams. They just (finally) completed the tram from Rotterdam, through Delft to The Hague. The Parisian metro reaches far, and further due to RER. In fact, central Paris has no trains. Paris basically has 5 or 6 main stations, all on the outskirts (of decades ago). Wanna get from one to the other? Take metro. London has a massive metro system reaching far far out. Just check the maps.

What I envision for the suburbs is a transit systems that bring people where they want to be. That is first to the local transit points: Metro stations, MARC, VRE stations, etc. Second: to local focal points, namely: malls, Theaters, etc. So grandma can take the bus to go shopping and mom and dad do not need to pick up Johnny and Sarah after a Thursday night movie.

Also build more metro. Extend all lines way out further. Green Line to BWI and King St or Andrews AFB. Red line to Frederick. Blue line along the Fairfax County Parkway to GMU. Orange line to Centreville and Manassass. Folks who say nobody's gonna take metro from Manassass to New Carrolton are right, so upgrade and connect VRE and MARC. [I am ignoring PGC cuz I don't know it very well] And get some bus lines feeding into all those stations. Create walkable areas around all the stations.

It is incomprehensible to me that parking rates at Franconia-Springfield are going up due to high demand, but that the county threatened to kill my bus line to that station. Clearly, people wanna get there. So why not let them take the bus and take some cars of the road?

All of this is possible. It has been done. Does the political will exist? Perhaps not. But it can be done.

by Jasper on Oct 28, 2009 9:43 pm • link • report

@James When you get daylight saving time back in the spring, I recommend switching to biking (I don't recommend new bike commuters try starting in the dark). For about a year I biked from Arlington to Silver Spring, and it was faster than Metro. Bethesda is even closer. Let me know when you're ready, and I'll meet you one morning and guide you there.

by Steve O on Oct 28, 2009 10:29 pm • link • report

ftpeditors wrote: The way to fix the suburbs is to make public transit fare-free in the city.

That'll also fix the library problem, because odiferous homeless folk will have some other place to spend their time. And it'll also help solve some of the jobless problem because of the extra security we'll need.

by Mike on Oct 28, 2009 10:46 pm • link • report

Nothing will change as long as Virginia continues to build more freeways further away from DC and building more Office Towers out there in Dulles which is the main cause of heavy sprawling traffic from DC to the Dulles Corridor.

by Rob on Oct 29, 2009 4:37 am • link • report