Custis Trail Riders – Take the VDOT I-66 Survey

[DismalScientist]

Growth in the area causes more traffic. If interchanges are available in areas where people want to get off and on a freeway, traffic is likely to be congested around those interchanges. Is this a function of the highway, or growth in commercial and residential areas with access to transportation? If growth is restricted in one area, will it just go to another area? Do you think you can find political support for limiting growth in historically fast growing area in Fairfax county and farther out? Particularly considering how limiting growth will affect property values?

Freeways do not cause increasing traffic on parallel roads unless there is commercial and residential development along those roads and the freeways allow access to those roads.

Westover is in no way endangered by more cars induced by traffic on i-66 or otherwise. The only danger it faces in the distant future is being Clarendonized. Obviously, that can occur as easily by Metro as by increases in highway capacity. But don’t worry, I’m sure that my pro-Smart Growth neighbors that are trying to limit development around the East Falls Church Metro station will keep that from happening.

As far as houses being destroyed by development, it normally leaves the previous homeowners with a big wad of money in their pockets, so that is fine by me.

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 9736 wrote:

I must say we’ll have to agree to disagree. The actual throughput of persons/hour would decrease because of the logjam effect. And likely more people would bail out to local Arlington streets, further exacerbating your daily commute.

If the actual throughput were to decrease, then the net cost of driving would increase by widening the road. I think there are some logical inconsistencies in your implicit transportation model.

[invisiblehand]

That was a long survey. Of course, it might have been long since we commute so many different ways.

With regards to widening I-66, I thought that one of the major restrictions was reconstruction of the bridges that cross it.

FWIW, when the boss and I tested out various commuting options after dropping the boy off at his school, we found a relatively small absolute difference between traveling on I-66 carpool versus taking Lee Highway. And most of the difference occurred in Rosslyn with the multiple traffic lights and several lanes of traffic heading over the Key Bridge. So while I concur with DismalS that there is some distortion onto local roads, I suspect that it’s effects are moderate.

It isn’t clear to me that we can assess the effect of HOV and a narrow I-66 on growth with simple aggregate figures of the number of commuters. You really want a counterfactual where you see the number and type of commuters with different strategies especially since there is a general trend of growth in the area. I’m not saying that the question is impossible to answer or at least get a grip on the effect, but it’s hard to do off the cuff.

In regards to why people don’t live closer to where they work, I think that there are several reasons for this. One, the amenities of neighborhoods close to work could inappropriate for one’s family. For instance, DCs services for children with disabilities is broadly considered piss poor … whether true or not is another question. IF you have a child with special needs then you’re likely better off elsewhere. Two, people change jobs for several reasons. Moving involves a large amount of costs which make it infeasible to live close. Three, there are a lot of two-worker families. Find a good match for both workers as well as the rest of the family is likely a hard problem. Four, there are income constraints to living in a lot of neighborhoods.

[Steve O]

I am in the East Falls Church area, and I support increasing density, and I know of others who do, also. I actually think the opponents are a minority (they are just louder, as usual).
There has actually been virtually no increased traffic in the R-B corridor for more than a decade. So it’s not clear that the policy has largely failed. Since we do not currently have the alternative universe that would have existed if I-66 had been built 6 or 8 lanes to start, we just don’t know. Perhaps more development was pushed to Prince William than Loudoun than would have otherwise.

“People want their lawns.” True for some, but not for others (I’d be happy to get rid of mine). Using price as a proxy for what people want, and the price of property in Arlington being higher than, say Loudoun, for half the space, it’s not clear that’s really what they want. More than 50% of households in Arlington are multi-family, and they are pretty expensive by and large. Obviously they do not want lawns–or at least not in exchange for whatever trade-offs they would experience (i.e., long commutes). In fact, if I could find a condo comparably sized to my house with no lawn, it would cost at least as much. If prices don’t lie, people don’t want lawns.

I think it’s pretty hard to criticize Arlington’s policies over the last 40 years. No place is perfect, but by most measures, Arlington is considered a model of how to manage growth and balance transportation. True that it has no influence over the neighboring jurisdictions, but given that, I think we’ve done well.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9738 wrote:

If the actual throughput were to decrease, then the net cost of driving would increase by widening the road. I think there are some logical inconsistencies in your implicit transportation model.

If you would care to point any out, I’d be happy to discuss them with you.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist: I agree that Arlington’s deal with I-66 is only one part of the solution, but disagree that I-66 and its HOV restrictions cause the traffic problems in the rest of Arlington. I think if all we did is lift the HOV restrictions, more people would drive alone in/through Arlington. After a short transition period, there would be the same congestion on the side streets, and we would just have more cars coming off the arterials at their destinations.

We can’t pave our way out of transportation problems because, given growth and without other policies, the number of cars expands to fill the pavement you give them.

Also, your list of subsidies leaves out the biggest subsidy of all: free roads (and parking, in so many places) that primarily benefit cars (exclusively on roads like I-66 that ban bikes and peds).

I can think of lots of ways to spend the money they would spend widening I-66 to encourage cycling: build overpasses/tunnels to reduce grade crossing, install HAWK signals, launch a driver (and cyclist) education campaign, increase cycling tax credits (there’s already a small one for employer-provided cycling stipends, similar to the public transit one – hands up if anyone gets it), build more cycletracks, expand CaBi.

@WillStewart: Love the waistband analogy. Mind if I use it?

[rcannon100]

So do I assume that the piece of paper “they” were trying to jam into my hands as I bike by at Lynn and Lee Hwy was the VDOT survey? What a bad idea- stationing someone down in the biie path attempting to hand they survey as people bike by.

25c for a clue: Stand on either side of Lynn St. East side and West Side. And hand the survey to people when they are stopped – not when they are moving.

[americancyclo]

@rcannon100 9773 wrote:

So do I assume that the piece of paper “they” were trying to jam into my hands as I bike by at Lynn and Lee Hwy was the VDOT survey?

If it was a yellow half-sheet, then yes, I think it was a piece of paper with a web address of the survey.

Maybe they should stuff them in a bidon next time, TdF style!

[Dirt]

People giving out surveys in the Lynn Street Death Zone.

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 9743 wrote:

If you would care to point any out, I’d be happy to discuss them with you.

Given the apparent unanimity of opposition to my position, it must be obvious to all that relaxing restrictions on transportation networks only leads to greater congestion through induced demand. In fact this argument in the extreme says, it leads to lower throughput in a significantly short period of time that people see this is the primary net effect. Yet there are people from the outer suburbs that still advocate paving the world, even though this leads to less throughput. I can only infer from this series of arguments that people from the outer suburbs are inherently stupid. Or… Perhaps adding more pavement does not, in fact, increase net congestion.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9737 wrote:

Growth in the area causes more traffic. If interchanges are available in areas where people want to get off and on a freeway, traffic is likely to be congested around those interchanges. Is this a function of the highway, or growth in commercial and residential areas with access to transportation? If growth is restricted in one area, will it just go to another area?

It’s not just growth that matters, it’s what kind of growth.

Car-dependent growth certainly adds more traffic. If you look at the numbers, the DC area has more or less kept up its road-building to match population growth. What has grown is miles traveled by car per person. That’s because they have to live further out and they live in car-dependent communities.

As far as houses being destroyed by development, it normally leaves the previous homeowners with a big wad of money in their pockets, so that is fine by me.

Sure, it’s not your house. But remember, if the house next to you goes but yours ends up next to a highway, you get nothing.

[Justin Antos]

@DismalScientist 9655 wrote:

I-66 is probably the only road in the world that does not operate at capacity during rush hour, but is at capacity at all other times.

How would you measure capacity – vehicles per lane per hour? Or passengers per lane per hour? I’d argue the latter measure is superior.

In fact, HOV restrictions may actually cause roads to move more people, not less. Say that during rush hour, vehicle volumes drop by 25%, but every vehicle is carrying twice as many passengers – the road’s performance has improved.

(I have no idea if this is true on I-66, I just want to point out the difference between measuring cars and measuring people).

Interesting thread!

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 9744 wrote:

@WillStewart: Love the waistband analogy. Mind if I use it?

Will “stole” it himself!

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9788 wrote:

Given the apparent unanimity of opposition to my position, it must be obvious to all that relaxing restrictions on transportation networks only leads to greater congestion through induced demand.

We could keep going with arguments in the extreme though, like this: Arlington would be paradise if I-66 were 14 lanes wide.

Yet there are people from the outer suburbs that still advocate paving the world, even though this leads to less throughput. I can only infer from this series of arguments that people from the outer suburbs are inherently stupid. Or… Perhaps adding more pavement does not, in fact, increase net congestion.

False dilemma. They may not be stupid. They could be simply misinformed, or relying on faulty or incomplete knowledge, or acting on their own interests to the expense of others. And their views don’t prove anything anyway. Pavement affects congestion a certain way regardless of how people think it does or doesn’t.

As you know, individuals sometimes act in their own rational self-interest in ways that result in hurting their interests when their individual actions are taken collectively.

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 9789 wrote:

It’s not just growth that matters, it’s what kind of growth.

Car-dependent growth certainly adds more traffic. If you look at the numbers, the DC area has more or less kept up its road-building to match population growth. What has grown is miles traveled by car per person. That’s because they have to live further out and they live in car-dependent communities.

Sure, it’s not your house. But remember, if the house next to you goes but yours ends up next to a highway, you get nothing.

The DC area has certainly not kept up with road building to match population growth. Not that I am advocating it do so. All I am saying is that expanding I-66 within the walls is the least-cost way (especially to Arlington) of expanding the transportation network. Furthermore, the deal restricting I-66 has only exacerbated its detrimental effects on Arlington.

As far are the development statement, I was responding to a comment suggesting that Westover would be destroyed by development caused by widening 66. baiskeli, you live across the freeway from me. Do you really think that development associated with widening the highway is a greater threat to neighborhood than the potential Clarendonation caused by development spurred by Metro?

P.S. My house already is only a block from the highway. Traffic on Washington Blvd bothers me a lot more than traffic on I-66.

[Author]

Posts