Custis Trail Riders – Take the VDOT I-66 Survey

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9843 wrote:

Sorry, I was less than concise. I don’t know anyone who has to live in Loudoun. I would imagine people choose to live there given their relative valuation of commuting costs, relative amenities (lawn, lack of people riding carbon bikes in full kit when they can be riding a classic steel bike with shifters on the downtube as God intended, (OOPS, that came out?) etc), housing costs, job locations, etc. I don’t see how smart growth lowers housing prices in Arlington so that people in Loudoun would choose differently. If you mean that these people would choose to live in the high density areas afforded by smart growth, then there is a profit opportunity for high density development in Arlington and it doesn’t need to be encouraged by government.

Building more road lanes enhances the perceived benefit to living further away, even if it means driving more. In other words, it induces sprawl, which induces higher VMT, which generates more congestion, pollution, reliance on foreign oil, ozone, PM-2.5, etc.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 9834 wrote:

I think there are two main questions to consider:
1. Should we lift HOV restrictions on I66?
2. Should we widen I66?

1. I think the answer here is no, because it means a net increase in # of cars.
2. I say definitely not, not only because I think it will mean a net increase in # of cars in the long run (among other problematic growth patterns). Most importantly, it would cost money (even within the walls). Given limited budgets, any money spent to widen a road is money not spent on bike paths, Metro improvements, driver education, etc etc etc.

On a completely different note, does anyone out there know if there have been studies done comparing the public subsidy of roads (construction and maintenance) to the cost of fixed infrastructure for public transport. I’d be interested to know whether user fees for Metro cover the same types of things that drivers pay for (i.e. the trains, and their maintenance and operation), while the public subsidy covers that same types of things that the public subsidy of roads pays of (building and maintenance of tracks, stations, etc). Just curious.

What I would like is for road that I have problem with high amounts of traffic to be restricted and that extra traffic to be diverted to roads where the traffic doesn’t bother me. Because of the way that it is designed, the traffic on I-66 does not bother me. I would like Washington Blvd. and the rest of my commute restricted to HOV and local traffic. baiskelli would like the same for Wilson Blvd. (I presume.) Other Arlingtonians would undoubtedly like Arlington Blvd and Lee Hwy similarly restricted. Because this scheme restricts seven lanes of inbound traffic, I would throw these Fairfax commuters a bone and widen I-66 and give them 3 to 4 lanes of unrestricted traffic. Alas, this scheme is not practical.

I agree that only removing HOV restrictions would quickly cause I-66 to fill up, although I suspect that most of this effect would not impinge on Washington Blvd compared to current conditions. Traffic patterns suggest that the hoard from Fairfax prefers Arlington Blvd as their alternative to I-66. I agree that inducing single occupancy driving is a problem with removing HOV restrictions, which is why I would advocate widening and derestricting in tandem, not that that would ever happen.

On budgetary issues–who knows how tradeoffs are made?

On studies looking at subsidization rates among different modes of transportation, there are plenty of them out there and they all give the results that their sponsors want.

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 9844 wrote:

Sure, and I’m saying that for some, the suburbs come out ahead because the alternatives are so rare. There isn’t much higher-density development to choose, and what is there is expensive for that reason. They may make the best choice for them given the choices, but the choices are limited.

You don’t see how someone living in an Apartment or condo in Arlington, perhaps not even owning or rarely using a car, could live cheaper than a standard home in Arlington?

Ah, but that goes right back to the point – development is inextricably linked to transportation. The government needs to provide the mode of transportation that makes high density development work. And of course there’s other things like zoning involved, to name just one of many factors. There is no pure free market involved here.

By the way, I’ve never debated a real economist and it’s scaring the hell out of me!

1) I think condo prices around Metro stations are so expensive because the land around Metro stations is limited and developers are going to build units for those people with lots of money who don’t particularly value lawns and sidewalks to shovel. If you want cheaper apartments, there are some on bus lines. I guess what I am saying is that it is difficult to imagine that there are people whose marginal decisions are between such widely diverse options like Loudoun and Arlington.
2) You misunderstood my statement. I though one possibility you were arguing was that smart growth would lower the price of single family housing in Arlington, which might allow someone from Loudoum to buy in. Although I don’t think think that smart growth would lower property values, I find it hard to believe that a person is sufficiently poor that he was forced to live in Loudoun, that a decrease in Arlington values would allow him to buy in.
3) I agree that development is linked to transportation. But it seems that Metro in Arlington is fully developed. The only thing stopping them greedy developers in providing the density the people want is zoning changes. But here, smart growth could be characterized as government simply getting out of the way by changing zoning laws. It doesn’t require affirmative action by the government.

4) I don’t think we are debating. I am just trying to lay out the issues in the standard cold-hearted way for which we dismal scientists are known.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9847 wrote:

What I would like is for road that I have problem with high amounts of traffic to be restricted and that extra traffic to be diverted to roads where the traffic doesn’t bother me. Because of the way that it is designed, the traffic on I-66 does not bother me.

This captures your entire motivation. You want the road network to be changed so that traffic on your preferred road is lightened, regardless of the impact to the rest of the travelers.

Others are calling for a systemic solution that addresses the greater good. I personally think it would have been better just to bring in the Metro and not 66, to reduce the amount of suburban sprawl, though car addiction was even higher then, undoubtedly affecting the decision.

@DismalScientist 9847 wrote:

On budgetary issues–who knows how tradeoffs are made?

While this doesn’t specifically focus on budget tradeoffs, it should help address your inquiry tangentially by addressing Policy Change Motivations.

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09029/index.htm

And this one addresses some of the techniques involved in success (or failure) of HOV projects.

http://www.mountain-plains.org/pubs/pdf/MPC04-158.pdf

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 9856 wrote:

This captures your entire motivation. You want the road network to be changed so that traffic on your preferred road is lightened, regardless of the impact to the rest of the travelers.

Others are calling for a systemic solution that addresses the greater good. I personally think it would have been better just to bring in the Metro and not 66, to reduce the amount of suburban sprawl, though car addiction was even higher then, undoubtedly affecting the decision.

I don’t think I am quite that provincial. I think the majority of Arlington residents should prefer cars on the freeway rather than on the surface streets.

I think the survey and the general question don’t seek and can’t seek a systematic solution. The question is what to do to a specific highway corridor. Because drivers can take other corridors, any action on one corridor can’t be a systematic solution. Bringing in more Metro may be a systematic approach, but since the Metro infrastructure in the corridor is already fully built out, this isn’t really an option when discussing this particular corridor.

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 9856 wrote:

And this one addresses some of the techniques involved in success (or failure) of HOV projects.

http://www.mountain-plains.org/pubs/pdf/MPC04-158.pdf

This study addresses the use of HOV in Salt Lake City and (after an exceedingly quick glance) seems to show that the HOV lanes move more people than the general purpose lanes. That’s all fine and dandy. Here the HOV lanes and the general purpose lanes were on the same freeway. The problem with Arlington is that I-66 are the HOV lanes and Arlington Blvd. acts as the general purpose lanes. I think this is the only HOV system in the country that is set up this way.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 9859 wrote:

I don’t think I am quite that provincial. I think the majority of Arlington residents should prefer cars on the freeway rather than on the surface streets.

I believe there are quite a few of us Arlingtonians who realize that the cars on the freeway have got to go somewhere at some point, and therefore our preference is fewer cars, both on and off the freeway.
*This really should be qualified — (1) most people perceive they’re better off when they drive alone, because of the immediate benefits (flexibility, speed) and costs (mainly gas), however many people would not be better off if they rationally took into account longer term costs (car insurance, depreciation, safety risks) and (2) even those longer term costs don’t capture the true cost of driving to our society — if they did, the cost-benefit analysis for many would look very different.

@DismalScientist 9859 wrote:

I think the survey and the general question don’t seek and can’t seek a systematic solution. The question is what to do to a specific highway corridor. Because drivers can take other corridors, any action on one corridor can’t be a systematic solution.

Just because it’s not the perfect end-all-be-all solution doesn’t mean it’s not good, in that it makes transportation marginally better for some people. It’s certainly a problem that we don’t have a single systematic plan to address transportation in the region, but I am confident that Arlington’s actions have helped reduce the number of cars on the road. In regards to 66’s restrictions, I think that some people have been encouraged to carpool because of them. It’s not a complete solution, but it helps.

@DismalScientist 9859 wrote:

Bringing in more Metro may be a systematic approach, but since the Metro infrastructure in the corridor is already fully built out, this isn’t really an option when discussing this particular corridor.

I disagree that Metro can’t expand in this corridor. The Silver Line (to Dulles) could be extended further North into Arlington (under Lee Hwy?) and through Gtown, increasing rush hour capacity (imagine the Silver and Orange meeting at EFC then diverging again). It would be expensive, but if we stop throwing money at roads, maybe we could afford it.

To the earlier point about people acting outside of their self-interest [sorry – I’m too lazy to track down the quote], that’s not really what’s going on — there’s a collective action problem. We’d all be better off if everyone drove less. But each individual is “better off” when they drive alone*, and the individual is only making a choice for him/herself, we get a lot more people driving.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9860 wrote:

This study addresses the use of HOV in Salt Lake City and (after an exceedingly quick glance) seems to show that the HOV lanes move more people than the general purpose lanes. That’s all fine and dandy. Here the HOV lanes and the general purpose lanes were on the same freeway. The problem with Arlington is that I-66 are the HOV lanes and Arlington Blvd. acts as the general purpose lanes. I think this is the only HOV system in the country that is set up this way.

But if you were to take the HOV lanes and turn them into GP lanes, there would be far less incentive to carpool, and single occupancy vehicle use would soar, with no clear hope or promise of increased person/hour throughput rate, which would leave you in exactly the same (or higher) side street congestion situation, except with higher local ozone, PM-2.5, and other pollution.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 9862 wrote:

I believe there are quite a few of us Arlingtonians who realize that the cars on the freeway have got to go somewhere at some point, and therefore our preference is fewer cars, both on and off the freeway.
*This really should be qualified — (1) most people perceive they’re better off when they drive alone, because of the immediate benefits (flexibility, speed) and costs (mainly gas), however many people would not be better off if they rationally took into account longer term costs (car insurance, depreciation, safety risks) and (2) even those longer term costs don’t capture the true cost of driving to our society — if they did, the cost-benefit analysis for many would look very different.

Just because it’s not the perfect end-all-be-all solution doesn’t mean it’s not good, in that it makes transportation marginally better for some people. It’s certainly a problem that we don’t have a single systematic plan to address transportation in the region, but I am confident that Arlington’s actions have helped reduce the number of cars on the road. In regards to 66’s restrictions, I think that some people have been encouraged to carpool because of them. It’s not a complete solution, but it helps.

I disagree that Metro can’t expand in this corridor. The Silver Line (to Dulles) could be extended further North into Arlington (under Lee Hwy?) and through Gtown, increasing rush hour capacity (imagine the Silver and Orange meeting at EFC then diverging again). It would be expensive, but if we stop throwing money at roads, maybe we could afford it.

To the earlier point about people acting outside of their self-interest [sorry – I’m too lazy to track down the quote], that’s not really what’s going on — there’s a collective action problem. We’d all be better off if everyone drove less. But each individual is “better off” when they drive alone*, and the individual is only making a choice for him/herself, we get a lot more people driving.

1) I don’t like arguments that people don’t take into account longer term costs. Saying they don’t is like saying they aren’t acting in their own self-interest, which seems mighty presumptuous. I agree that externalities, by definition, distort private costs from social costs. This seems a better argument for you. Of course, my original statement was just discussing pure preferences, comparing one car on an arterial road vs. one on I-66. This was meant to counter what I perceive Will’s argument that I was somehow cherry-picking streets on which I preferred less traffic when I cited Arl Blvd, Lee Hwy, Wash. Blvd, and Wilson Blvd, which are, of course, the 4 main east-west arterial roads in Arlington.

2) I wasn’t particularly keen on the options provided. They discussed adding bus lanes, as if that would help given that traffic is generally free-flowing in the rush hour direction! The further discussed a bus rapid transit system with dedicated stops. I don’t see how this is conceptually all that different from Metro, which would be only a few blocks from any bus loading facilities in Arlington. Any facility along the Dulles Toll Road will be replaced by the Silver Line. Furthermore, any bus facility outside of the beltway doesn’t really change road infrastructure needs inside the beltway.
(Note I use the term free-flowing here rather than capacity, as I note Justin’s correct point.)
I’m not anti-HOV and recognize their benefits. I think my main point is that I think the cheapest and easiest way of adding road capacity would be inside the walls of I-66. However, because the HOV lanes are free flowing, adding them as HOV wouldn’t move more traffic. I haven’t figured what I would propose. Perhaps HOT/HOV lanes with the proceeds to crabon bikes for the truly needy.:rolleyes:

3) I choose the words “Metro infrastructure” carefully. Obviously the way Metro should expand is by using longer, more frequent trains. The Silver Line would help with this. Putting metro under Lee Hwy would be extremely disruptive. Not even the most wild-eyed road proponent would suggest something similar, but with pavement.
In terms of “throwing money at roads,” different people have different standards of what this means. Earlier in this thread was a discussion of the trend in lane miles and per capita lane miles.

[Author]

Posts