Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[QUOTE Instead you could of course create multiple crossings into Fairfax County and Centreville, something that Fairfax would likely be more favorable towards in partnership and shared funds. Same number of lanes, just not funnelled. But of course somehow this would "just move the choke point", smh so many civil engineers on this forum I had no idea about.
If you could elaborate on this, please do so instead of just being smug
Whats the point, you'd ignore it and call me smug anyways. You want wider roads, not good road design. Why should I spend any more of my time try to explain that, my god! what civil engineers (and politicians) have been doing for the past 30 years might be wrong, and that tried and true designs that have held civilization together for millenia might have been right all along.
Its simple. You dont force everyone to one point, there by increasing risk of total failure (1 accident = system failure) you spread risk, you create multi-alternate routes which has two benefits, it reduces a total system failure risk and it siphons off people who would otherwise use the main corridor in order to make a local trip (that might only account for 10-15% of users but in terms of transportation 10-15% of demand is basically the difference between free flow and total failure, in fact swings of 3% demand can completely alter the way a road works).
By splitting the system as such you also have the added benefit that you can design to human scale (ie no greater than 4 lanes, or worst case 6 lanes), which also allows people who have ultra local trips to avoid using a car all together. Doing this can help reduce 1-3% of all vehicle trips on a corridor as well.
Instead of focusing so much on the capacity side, people need to realize you get mcuh more bang from the demand side and thats not just by removing people from cars(though that can help also). You can reduce demand on a given corridor by creating alternate corridors. There are several options that I see having done projects along that corridor for so long.
These would involve Right of Way acquisition, but so does a corridor widening typically. Had they been designed properly in the first place (not VDOTs favorite culdesac and max development pie piece properties that obstruct future possibilities) you would not need any new right of way.
Examples?
Euclid could have connected with Union Mill road across bull run. Old Centreville shouldn't bend into Compton road, it should have continued full length as a parallel road to 28. Eventually Compton Road should have a connector ramp onto I-66 (not the massive cloverleaf). Manassas drive should have been extended across Bull Run also to connect to compton giving people the option to not have to drive all the way to 28 to go across bull run if they live in Manassas park.
Is there topo issues? Sure. Do bridges across a tributary cost money. Yes. But so does a massive road widening project through an existing commercial zone occurring on a busy network and trying to avoid major disruption.
Whats the point, you'd ignore it and call me smug anyways. You want wider roads, not good road design. Why should I spend any more of my time try to explain that, my god! what civil engineers (and politicians) have been doing for the past 30 years might be wrong, and that tried and true designs that have held civilization together for millenia might have been right all along.
Its simple. You dont force everyone to one point, there by increasing risk of total failure (1 accident = system failure) you spread risk, you create multi-alternate routes which has two benefits, it reduces a total system failure risk and it siphons off people who would otherwise use the main corridor in order to make a local trip (that might only account for 10-15% of users but in terms of transportation 10-15% of demand is basically the difference between free flow and total failure, in fact swings of 3% demand can completely alter the way a road works).
By splitting the system as such you also have the added benefit that you can design to human scale (ie no greater than 4 lanes, or worst case 6 lanes), which also allows people who have ultra local trips to avoid using a car all together. Doing this can help reduce 1-3% of all vehicle trips on a corridor as well.
Instead of focusing so much on the capacity side, people need to realize you get mcuh more bang from the demand side and thats not just by removing people from cars(though that can help also). You can reduce demand on a given corridor by creating alternate corridors. There are several options that I see having done projects along that corridor for so long.
These would involve Right of Way acquisition, but so does a corridor widening typically. Had they been designed properly in the first place (not VDOTs favorite culdesac and max development pie piece properties that obstruct future possibilities) you would not need any new right of way.
Examples?
Euclid could have connected with Union Mill road across bull run. Old Centreville shouldn't bend into Compton road, it should have continued full length as a parallel road to 28. Eventually Compton Road should have a connector ramp onto I-66 (not the massive cloverleaf). Manassas drive should have been extended across Bull Run also to connect to compton giving people the option to not have to drive all the way to 28 to go across bull run if they live in Manassas park.
Is there topo issues? Sure. Do bridges across a tributary cost money. Yes. But so does a massive road widening project through an existing commercial zone occurring on a busy network and trying to avoid major disruption.
Interesting, that's what I was looking for. Pay attention though, I NEVER said widening all the roads would be better. Geez, talk about ignoring what you want to ignore
Interesting, that's what I was looking for. Pay attention though, I NEVER said widening all the roads would be better. Geez, talk about ignoring what you want to ignore
And I never said road improvements were bad either. I am against badly designed road networks. Roads are still the primary way people move, even in transit rich areas. By ending bad VDOT suburban design methods we can make road networks much better. It was the ideas of Robert Moses and the intracity highway crowd that doomed us to the traffic we face today versus what they see in other countries and other better planned cities. Unfortunately, when one says we should stop widening highways they are often seen as conducting a war on cars and the obligatory response is usually to lump them in with the spandex crowd or the granola crowd.
Highways were always meant to serve for intercity travel. The Eisenhower era highways were perfectly designed for this. It was our DOTs in the 60s and 70s that ruined that concept (as well as the developers who thought building along highways was a smart idea when instead towns should use highways as off shoot edges, not central corridors).
It would be nice to have robust train lines extending west to Haymarket but I think that idea has been debunked.
Creating a large army of express buses from each populated town/suburb going directly to Arlington, Tysons and into DC would probably be more feasible. Of course the buses would have to run frequently and prove to be considerably faster than simply sitting on 66 for people to use them, but I think this idea is reasonable and would make use of the roads and HOV lanes that already exist.
It's done in NY and those buses, while not cheap, are very heavily used and effective at taking cars off the road.
It would be nice to have robust train lines extending west to Haymarket but I think that idea has been debunked.
Creating a large army of express buses from each populated town/suburb going directly to Arlington, Tysons and into DC would probably be more feasible. Of course the buses would have to run frequently and prove to be considerably faster than simply sitting on 66 for people to use them, but I think this idea is reasonable and would make use of the roads and HOV lanes that already exist.
It's done in NY and those buses, while not cheap, are very heavily used and effective at taking cars off the road.
In NY they have robust commuter rail systems (feeding Jersey and Connecticut). Those commuter systems work well because on the terminal ends the towns were created in a way that people actually get to the train stations without having to also get on a highway. Restrict growth to areas around rail, while also increasing funding for new rail stations along the VRE (and of course more frequent service as well as improvements to existing choke points) and the system can also work here. Its also a positive feedback loop. The more you keep growth around the stations, the more used those stations are, and the less you have to actually pump subsidy money into them.
I grew up in NY and saw the public transportation system in action. It worked quite well, and as you said, there's not a lot of driving done to get to a bus stop or a train station.
The problem here seems to be the mad rush to create one housing development after another (especially in western PWC), with no planning done ahead of time regarding how those people will get to work, or the problems that would create for the local roadways.
I agree that VRE needs to extend into Gainesville and Haymarket, and consideration should also be given to Warrenton. Those extensions by themselves would likely relieve a huge amount of the eastbound traffic that finds its way onto 66.
For the areas in Fairfax that are west of Vienna, I think a robust express bus system would be effective and well received.
Route 7 widening is a done deal, as is 50. It makes no sense IMO to have a stretch of narrower road between two stretches of wider road -- you've got the roads well-established as neighborhood-dividing arterials that are en route to becoming freeways along many stretches.
Now I-66 in Arlington -- a case could be made to widen to three or four lanes each way between Glebe and the Beltway. I'm not sure what's gained by widening all the way to Spout Run where as Tysons says it's all going to hit a narrow bridge and road that can't be widened
I also agree with him in that Arlington's "share" of VDOT pie shouldn't be used up by I-66 widening, or at the least figuring out who does use I-66 in that area -- maybe it's 20% reverse commuters from Arlington, 50% folks from Fairfax, 20% PWC, 7% Fauquier, 3% Warren, etc.
Thing is, what's it in it for the outlying counties to submit to TE's regional planning agency if he seems to not even want employment areas scattered around the region but rather concentrated in The City? (Also, it's argued a fair bit that smart growth does drive up housing prices).
Route 7 widening is a done deal, as is 50. It makes no sense IMO to have a stretch of narrower road between two stretches of wider road -- you've got the roads well-established as neighborhood-dividing arterials that are en route to becoming freeways along many stretches.
Now I-66 in Arlington -- a case could be made to widen to three or four lanes each way between Glebe and the Beltway. I'm not sure what's gained by widening all the way to Spout Run where as Tysons says it's all going to hit a narrow bridge and road that can't be widened
I also agree with him in that Arlington's "share" of VDOT pie shouldn't be used up by I-66 widening, or at the least figuring out who does use I-66 in that area -- maybe it's 20% reverse commuters from Arlington, 50% folks from Fairfax, 20% PWC, 7% Fauquier, 3% Warren, etc.
Thing is, what's it in it for the outlying counties to submit to TE's regional planning agency if he seems to not even want employment areas scattered around the region but rather concentrated in The City? (Also, it's argued a fair bit that smart growth does drive up housing prices).
Smart growth doesnt have to drive housing prices if in that growth there is also more supply. People always want to bring up SF and NYC. Those are areas that have had restrictive growth, not smart growth, it just happens to coincide with alternative transportation systems.
Look at Austin, Denver, Charlotte, Provo, and a myriad of other well planned cities that have not busted the bank but have very good suburbs and city areas.
In terms of the submitting to TE's regional planning agency. I didn't even know I proposed one, thats neat. I just said that VDOT shouldnt be allowed to dictate from up high in Richmond what is good for NOVA or Fairfax, or anywhere. They don't know what they are doing, 40 years of empirical evidence shows us that.
Whats in it for the outlying counties to design properly is that they can actually have better commutes because the solution outlined above is better than all the road widenings you are suggesting in terms of actually reducing congestion. That is the goal for you no? I'm not saying they have to do anything either, but PWC should be allowed to pick what PWC wants, not VDOT. That being said, PWC should not have some trump card over what Fairfax wants. That to me means MORE regional coordination, not less, it means that outer suburbs will no longer be allowed to use the state as a wedge to harm inner suburbs. You see it as if it is the inner burbs causing distress to outer, I see it as the outer burbs causing design changes that inner burbs dont want.
Also divvying up by percentage used is inaccurate, if Arlington uses 66 for instance in the opposite direction of traffic (as one example). Then their road traffic is having no effect on congestion. Ultimately it is a matter of, if Arlington votes against it, why should any of their money go towards it, and why should the state be able to grab it from them in terms of land. So that Prince William can benefit?
Ok now show me 1 example of how anything comparable is happening in Arlingtons favor towards Prince William... I will wait here to hear the answer. It sure as hell isnt getting any help for their transportation needs from the outer burbs in terms of money, land, etc. Arlington carries its own weight and then some in terms of the money it gives the state versus what the state gives back, and with the new sales tax versus gas tax finagling that Governor Bobby passed before being indicted, that situation has only gotten worse. Yes Arlington has its own funds now (of which it can only use 35% of what it generates) but what about the other 65%... gee I wonder where those funds go.
Its all well and good to talk about regionalism, until that means PWC, or Loudoun, or yes even Fairfax giving money towards a BRT system, streetcar, or metro ay? What you mean is regionalism... when it works for commuters from outside coming in.
Last edited by tysonsengineer; 09-22-2014 at 10:04 AM..
I've always thought the lack of alternate routes to be the biggest problem in this area. In that vein, I'd like to see a new bridge from 28 connecting to 370 somehow. Anyways, I never did understand why they funnel all of the traffic onto one route.
I've always thought the lack of alternate routes to be the biggest problem in this area. In that vein, I'd like to see a new bridge from 28 connecting to 370 somehow. Anyways, I never did understand why they funnel all of the traffic onto one route.
Because super highways are the way of the future you see! A highway in every lawn! The only way you can justify the construction of one, is if you purposefully move all traffic towards it. I've never been specifically an opponent or proponent of a northern crossing, in general I find the opposition to new bridges across the potomac to be absurd, especially by those who say it will be ugly, environmentally yada yada.
Look at a paris. There is a way to make bridges not be horrendous, and approving several bridges means each individual bridge can be human scale and not individually try to replicate the American Legion. As far as where to put it, I personally would prefer closer in than further out, but thats for obvious reasons Of course the opposition has a point, considering VDOT would be the ones designing atleast part of said bridge (or atleast coordinating on it for one abutment end).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyways, I never did understand why they funnel all of the traffic onto one route.
Of course the opposition has a point, considering VDOT would be the ones designing atleast part of said bridge (or atleast coordinating on it for one abutment end).
