How is possible that the traffic is that bad??? (Bethesda: house, neighborhoods)

[Cruzincat]

First there are few interstate type roads that allow you to drive into or through the city, and the roads that do let you come into or through the city have speed cameras all over the place, especially in areas with ridiculously low speed limits. This incentivizes everyone onto the beltway to go around the city to a closer road to their destination before they head into town.

Poor planning, even when they try is also the reason. It took a Republican governor to get MD200 built, because the Democratic governors figured if they made it painful enough to drive more people would become dependent on mass transit. More people dependent on government means more voters for them. The only time Maryland seems to make any progress is when the Dems put up such a bad candidate for governor that a Republican gets elected. Next time around they will probably have a better candidate and things will get worse again.

MD200 was built to alleviate traffic on the northern side of the beltway, but they built it close in on the I95 end and way out on the I270 end. If you are heading to the west end in the morning, when the traffic is historically at its worst, you take MD200 to I270 and then you have the same traffic issues on SB I270.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by Cruzincat

It took a Republican governor to get MD200 built, because the Democratic governors figured if they made it painful enough to drive more people would become dependent on mass transit. More people dependent on government means more voters for them.

1. you think Ehrlich spending $2.5B+ on the ICC is something to be proud of? Interesting. I thought it was universally thought to have been a complete waste of money, by this point.
2. ...you know mass transit and roads both are financed/engineered/maintained by governments, yes? How does using mass transit v. using a road make you more "dependent on government?" That's one of the funkier anti-transit arguments I've heard.

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by bufflove

1. you think Ehrlich spending $2.5B+ on the ICC is something to be proud of? Interesting. I thought it was universally thought to have been a complete waste of money, by this point.
2. ...you know mass transit and roads both are financed/engineered/maintained by governments, yes? How does using mass transit v. using a road make you more "dependent on government?" That's one of the funkier anti-transit arguments I've heard.

1. The ICC is gaining in users and it will eventually pay for itself. I use it quite often to go to Rockville and Germantown, before I moved from Kent Island.

2. Once you have committed to using mass transit and have made the decision on where to work and where to live, and adjust your vehicle ownership situation accordingly, you become dependent on the mass transit to continue. You also are not paying the true cost of ridership. It continues to be subsidized by the government in the form of taxes on gas and tolls, paid by those driving cars. So, yes, users of mass transit are depending on the government to continue the largess.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by Cruzincat

1. The ICC is gaining in users and it will eventually pay for itself. I use it quite often to go to Rockville and Germantown, before I moved from Kent Island.

2. Once you have committed to using mass transit and have made the decision on where to work and where to live, and adjust your vehicle ownership situation accordingly, you become dependent on the mass transit to continue. You also are not paying the true cost of ridership. It continues to be subsidized by the government in the form of taxes on gas and tolls, paid by those driving cars. So, yes, users of mass transit are depending on the government to continue the largess.

1. no, it's not going to pay for itself, nor was it ever expected to pay for itself. Google if you're interested in the projections.

2. Literally every single one of those points is identically true for those "committed to using" single occupancy vehicles, as well. You think relying on road infrastructure doesn't affect where you work/live? It doesn't affect your vehicle ownership? You think gas taxes and tolls come even remotely close to paying the construction and maintenance cost of roads? Your claim that using bus or rail lines to move around is more "government dependent" than using a road to get around is obvious nonsense.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by DistrictSonic

What I am saying is sprawl has a very specific meaning. It means low density suburban development, even more specifically ex-urban development. Sprawl is not high density in it's overall design. The classic example of sprawl is London county.

It's spelled Loudon County and its making its rural to exurb change right now as are Prince William and Prince George County . Soon Yankeedom will leap across the Rapahannock and into the heart of Virginia.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by Cruzincat

First there are few interstate type roads that allow you to drive into or through the city, and the roads that do let you come into or through the city have speed cameras all over the place, especially in areas with ridiculously low speed limits. This incentivizes everyone onto the beltway to go around the city to a closer road to their destination before they head into town.

Poor planning, even when they try is also the reason. It took a Republican governor to get MD200 built, because the Democratic governors figured if they made it painful enough to drive more people would become dependent on mass transit. More people dependent on government means more voters for them. The only time Maryland seems to make any progress is when the Dems put up such a bad candidate for governor that a Republican gets elected. Next time around they will probably have a better candidate and things will get worse again.

MD200 was built to alleviate traffic on the northern side of the beltway, but they built it close in on the I95 end and way out on the I270 end. If you are heading to the west end in the morning, when the traffic is historically at its worst, you take MD200 to I270 and then you have the same traffic issues on SB I270.

I think the use of the ICC to connect I-95 to I 270 (Originally called I-70S) is just about right for if you complete the arc build that new bridge (Stayed Cable bridges can be beautiful) across the Potomac and the C&O Canal Park above the great Falls it puts one in Sterling VA at VA Rt 28. A direct connection to Dulles Airport and I-66. Rt 28 only needs a little work (interchanges) to be brought up to Interstate standards and VA has been planning a limited access road to connect Rt 28 to I-95 at the Occoquan hence a new bypass for North bound traffic on 95 to not have to go into heart of DC or the beltway. I would plan a new route connecting the ICC to I 97 and running it down Rt 301 to VA to I-95 S finishing Washington's 2nd Beltway resembling what now exists in the NY Metro area and Boston with its I-495 and MA Rt-128.

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by bufflove

1. no, it's not going to pay for itself, nor was it ever expected to pay for itself. Google if you're interested in the projections.

2. Literally every single one of those points is identically true for those "committed to using" single occupancy vehicles, as well. You think relying on road infrastructure doesn't affect where you work/live? It doesn't affect your vehicle ownership? You think gas taxes and tolls come even remotely close to paying the construction and maintenance cost of roads? Your claim that using bus or rail lines to move around is more "government dependent" than using a road to get around is obvious nonsense.

Absolutely I believe it! The Bay Bridge is a perfect example. The revenues from the Bay Bridge helped pay for the construction of the ICC. Tell you what. You first show me links to prove that riders on the Mass Transit systems are paying for the whole costs of the systems, and I will start looking for the data to support that tolls and gas taxes pay more than is required to maintain the roads we drive on. I don't think I will have to look for it.

As far as roads determining where someone lives in relation to where they work. Maybe it does, but anyone using mass transit on a routine basis to commute to work will have a much harder time moving to a new location than someone who always drives to work.

I am not going to lose sleep over the fact that you disagree with my opinion. We have disagreed on other things and probably will on more in the future. I think it is in your nature.

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by mwruckman

I think the use of the ICC to connect I-95 to I 270 (Originally called I-70S) is just about right for if you complete the arc build that new bridge (Stayed Cable bridges can be beautiful) across the Potomac and the C&O Canal Park above the great Falls it puts one in Sterling VA at VA Rt 28. A direct connection to Dulles Airport and I-66. Rt 28 only needs a little work (interchanges) to be brought up to Interstate standards and VA has been planning a limited access road to connect Rt 28 to I-95 at the Occoquan hence a new bypass for North bound traffic on 95 to not have to go into heart of DC or the beltway. I would plan a new route connecting the ICC to I 97 and running it down Rt 301 to VA to I-95 S finishing Washington's 2nd Beltway resembling what now exists in the NY Metro area and Boston with its I-495 and MA Rt-128.

I don't think the people in VA want that connection to be made to I66. I agree that MD200 should connect to either I97 or US50 east/northeast of Bowie. Long term that would make so much sense.

An even better bypass would be to connect I95 from Delaware down to a new bridge somewhere between Cambridge and the Calvert Cliffs area, continuing down to I95 around Bowling Green, VA. Most of that bypass could be built with a minimal amount of housing that would have to be razed. If they start sooner rather than later, that is. That would satisfy the need for a third Bay Bridge span, and for long term traffic relief around Baltimore and Washington.

[seanlax]

Cruzincat, you act like people in Dorchester County actually want another stupid bridge.

Second, you really need to come to a realization about investments in mass transit &/vs. road infrastructure. I've worked in the field long enough to know that users of both system don't cover the costs of either system, and the two are so intertwined that trying to accurately distinguish costs and benefits between the two is absurd and asinine. Either way the government has to pay for them, and either way people who never use said infrastructure element will end up paying for it.

Tell you what, when you stop buying food shipped over 2000 miles of roads, packed in a factory that hires workers dependent on mass transit, and is delivered to your precious local grocery store (oh and you and be like 99.99% certain it won't kill your or make you sick once again thanks to the government), all of which the government has so graciously designed and subsidized to keep a bag of chips right around $3, we can talk. Until then, you really are a bit delusion don't you think? There's a difference between being a right-winger and whatever this is.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by Cruzincat

You first show me links to prove that riders on the Mass Transit systems are paying for the whole costs of the systems, and I will start looking for the data to support that tolls and gas taxes pay more than is required to maintain the roads we drive on. I don't think I will have to look for it.

I never said people who use mass transit pay the full direct cost of the system. Of course they don't. Just like it's clear and obvious people who drive on roads don't pay the full direct cost of road infrastructure. That's my entire point. Neither "pay their way" and both are equally "dependent on government." I don't even understand what we're arguing about, assuming we both now understand those basics.