I can understand that public transportation is always good, but you gotta be kidding me. What kind of justification is there for the fact that the only highway leading west from the District of Columbia is only 4 lanes? Not only is that a national security risk, but its a total joke. It is completely selfish that the government of Arlington County plus a couple people whose homes are by I-66 feel that they are entitled to have any say in cutting off over a million people (and that's just counting Fairfax County) from easy access to the focal point of the metropolitan area. Metro is not always a convenient option for people to go to DC, especially for people like me who commute into the city later, not only are the metro lots full but many of the connector buses stop running at that time. You may be able to push forward your statistics on how an extra lane may not help, yet I just suggest that you drive westbound on 66 on any day of the week around 7 PM and tell me why traffic is almost bumper to bumper within the beltway (2 lanes westbound) and then smooth sailing outside of it (4 lanes westbound) and it is NOT because most of the cars exit before getting there. This NIMBY-ism is the exact reason why the nation's capital has one of the worst road infrastructures in the nation.

Anyway, I still support your campaign against Al Eisenberg!!!!!!!

If you widen the road, more people will drive, fewer people will take Metro and it will be just as congested as before.

Someone at work suggested that they renumber the highway to I-666 :-).

When they widened I270, they made the claim that they would be able to handle traffic for decades.  Instead people moved further out, traffic increased, and any gains they made have since been lost.

When we went with Gtown Young Dems to Ohio to campaign 270 was totally clear until we got to the part where it suddenly narrows to 2 lanes in each direction. Transportation improvements have the ability to provide positive benefits to more people than just commuters.

that is very well documented.  And the widening of I-66 in the fashion it is being done violates the agreements put in place when the road was built.

I assume your documentation leads you to believe, then, that one lane is optimal.

NEW & WIDER HIGHWAYS WORSEN CINCINNATI'S TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK AND SPRAWL: NEW STUDY SAYS NEW HIGHWAYS CAUSE, NOT RELIEVE, UP TO 43% OF TRI-STATE TRAFFIC JAMS.

Also, I strongly recommend Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream.  

the argument for two rather than one as far as lanes is that it allows for safe passing of a slower vehicle, and for greater safety in entering and exiting limited access roads.

Beyond that is where the studies, such as that provided by Lowell, come into play.

rating someone's comment a zero because you disagree with them is inappropriate and is not acceptable behavior on this website.

The GreenMiles has done this on numerous occasions to me and other posters when he simply disagrees with our arguments.  You have never stepped in to remind him of the rules.

I have a life as a teacher, and I post elsewhere.  But whenever I see what I consider ratings abuse I address it. Sometimes I do it offline, if I have an easy way of communicating with people.

Look, if adding a third lane would eliminate traffic congestion on I66 forever, I'd be all for it. But traffic behaves like a gas -- it expands to fill all available space. Add a lane to I66 and for the low price of ... however many hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost, all you've done is allowed a few thousand drivers per day to take 66 instead of taking Route 50 or Lee Highway.

There are plenty of much cheaper ways to ease congestion by cars off the road -- promoting telecommuting and four day work weeks, better bus service, incentives for carpooling and off-peak commuting. But those don't allow politicians to have a big press conference next to the shiny new blacktop.

Ok traffic is a gas.  So without this added capacity we have pressure (traffic jams) and one day there is going to be an explosion (massive road-rage or something)

I agree that multi-modal is the way to go but Georgetown is right.  This is all about the NIMBYs.  He is also correct that as soon as you pass 29 everything opens up.  

I know you think cars are evil but you have to be realistic.  Go ahead and be immature and troll rate me because you disagree.  I am sure thats exactly how to get things done in Richmond.

No, this is NOT all about NIMBYism.

This is about political INTEGRITY.  Sorry, but we cannot begin to imagine why our political climate in this nation has degraded so badly (and our ability to completely miss the mark on solving so many important problems right along with it) without understanding that reneging on these sorts of problems is simply untenable.

Keep you doggone word.  It matters.  That's a HUGE reason why I-66 must not be expanding.  That was the deal Virginia made, and it must stick with that deal.

The only part of an expansion that makes any sense at all is the additional westbound lane from inside where no changes to bridges or "hard" infrastructure would be necessary---that would be cheap and help to alleviate some congestion inside Arlington to the split at the Dulles Toll Road, but actually would make very little impact on regional traffic anyway.  The Toll Road, Beltway, and I-66 West would all then simply be a little more congested in the evenings as I-66 shuffles more cars onto each.

This is a never-ending cyclical problem.  More lanes everywhere will NOT solve it.

for an actuarial study of the number of current residents of Arlington who were voting-age residents of Arlington County in 1956, which is when this road was planned according to the post.  

My guess, as a percentage of Arlington's current population: 5% or less.  Look, it may be a broken promise, but it ain't a promise to the folks who are raising hell about it now.

infrastructure improvements are NOT simply about easing congestion for commuters. I don't see any reason why there can be a justification, like I said, for the fact that the only highway leading west from capital of the United States is two lanes in each direction. Even capital cities with strong emphases on public transportation like London and Paris at least have strong highway systems which can be integrated to the overall transportation network in case of some kind of emergency.  

I am totally for the fact that the road was FORCED upon Arlington. Can you imagine how f-ed up the transportation network would look like without I-66??? Just imagine having to get from DC to Dulles Airport. Northern Virginia is not simply the 200,000 or so people who live in Arlington County. Thus, the citizens of the county should have no right to dictate the terms of access to DC for the millions of Northern Virginians who live further out from the city.

It's about honoring integrity in political compromise.  It's about the very REAL meaning of pollution, noise, and traffic in ONE'S OWN NEIGHBORHOOD!

to highways is the exact OPPOSITE of what we should be doing as we try to kick our "oil addiction," enhance our energy security and confront the crisis of global warming.

Once we have plug-in hybrids or fully electric cars, we will still need roads to drive them on.

To think that Americans are ever going to completely stop driving is absurd. While we must cut back on oil consumption and hopefully eliminate all use some day, American cities are not built for walking.  Also people are going to continue to want to live in "sprawlsville/exurbia" as you call it, partly for the same reason you don't want this addition. I think its a bit idiotic to live in the middle of a metropolitan area and complain that there is air pollution. If its such a problem for you maybe you should move out to Fredericksburg and commute in to work. But then I guess  you would be on the other side of this argument.

Nobody's talking about this: "Americans are ever going to completely stop driving."  Why are you erecting straw men to knock down? The issue here, again, is whether we move in the direction of smart growth and away from the sprawl model, or whether we continue to subsidize sprawl as we've been doing since the 1950s.  The answer to this question by just about anyone who's studied it is obvious: the sprawl model is unsustainable.

You're right in saying that no one has made this argument expressly, but I think one can clearly infer that some posters think this or would like to see this happen. If I'm reading all these posts wrong, I apologize, but I feel that if I am reading these this way others probably are also. Some of these comments are further down the page, but I wanted to limit my postings on one subject.

Here are some examples:

"It's also about the fact that adding lanes to highways is the exact OPPOSITE of what we should be doing as we try to kick our "oil addiction," enhance our energy security and confront the crisis of global warming." - Lowell

""This isn't about "drama" or "conspiracy theories." It's about the fact that adding more lanes to highways it antiquated thinking at a time when we need to be moving in a completely different direction.  In short, it's terrible public policy, whether it's in Arlington or anywhere else, with very few exceptions (can't think of any right now). Instead of adding lanes or cutting through cities (thankfully, that craziness largely went out of fashion years ago), we should be investing in mass transit, smart growth, etc." - Lowell

"Americans love their cars.  But this love affair has a cost, and we better get a grip on that reality before we set ourselves up for irreversable failure.  This I-66 issue is a great place to start." - Doug in Mount Vernon

"We have build up this huge infrastructure that depends on cheap petroleum.  What happens when it runs out?  How are we going to power these vehicles?
This isn't an abstract question for some day in the distant future - the problem is breathing down our necks, and there aren't any easy answers.  The best answer that people have come up with so far is to drastically reduce our dependence upon the car." - ericy

"We need to start moving away as rapidly as possible from the sprawl model of development.  Building more highways or adding lanes to existing ones is exactly the opposite direction we should be going right now." - Lowell

imply what you're saying. Again, stop with the red herrings and straw men and simply make your argument as to why you think widening I-66 would be a good idea, good public policy, whatever.  

You have not said let's abolish all public highways.  But you did say that expanding them is the opposite of what we should be doing.  What I am wondering is how this is a winning position in Northern Virginia when it comes to the 2009 races?

With Metro, there are essentially two lines into Virginia.  For all intents and purposes, there is one East-West line (Orange) and one North-South line (Yellow and Blue).  Each extends maybe 15 miles into Virginia.  Then you have VRE which services Manassas and Fredericksburg.  There are vasts swaths of Fairfax and Prince William that are not served well by this system.  Loudon has no rail option at all.  Granted you could take a bus to a station, but that would at minimum double your commute time.  Not to mention you laud Arlington's smart growth, but there is density in Shirlington that is just served by buses.  In Fairfax, you have density at Bailey's Crossroads and along 395 that is again served by buses.  I know buses are considered mass transit, but they seem even less effective than rail at getting people off the roads.  I mean by the bus standard, Houston has mass-transit.  And anyone who has been to Houston or lived there knows how laughable that is.

There is slugging, commuter buses, and other options, but having all of these things has not reduced traffic on 395, 66, 495, Route 1, or the George Washington Parkway.  So, if you don't want to expand capacity on the roads, what is the alternative to reduce congestion?  And why must an alternative exclude additional road capacity?

I think bus service could be improved significantly, and that it wouldn't be that expensive -- at least not in comparison to building another two lanes on I-66.  

How you can say that those quotes imply what I'm saying is absurd. I realize most of them are your own quotes so I give you authority to say what they actually mean, but it could reasonably be inferred that that is what you meant. If you say otherwise you are blinded by your disdain for my opinions. You have repeatedly stated how people can't attack others and probably banned GeorgetownStudent because of what he said, but you have repeatedly made similar underhanded attacks at people differing from your view, maybe you should give yourself a warning or ban yourself. I mean fair is fair. Also my argument as to why I-66 should be widened is this:
These sprawling communities are already built, people live and work there. Widening the road, could allow for more building and development, no one is arguing that it wouldn't, but the more important thing is that widening would lessen traffic and allow thousands of Virginians to spend less time in their cars and more time doing something productive.

Why do you think I-66 has one of the most curved routes inside the beltway?? It curves completely around the city of Falls Church and avoids going right through major population centers of Arlington (besides Rosslyn) County in order to placate the desires of Arlington/Falls Church in the 70s. These same NIMBY people dictated the entire ROUTE of the project in the first place. What right do they have to now start some selfish campaign against widening the road?

or family farm or business or whatever.  Look, it's not like we've got a bunch of open spaces in the immediate DC metro area to be building roads, if only for those darn people at VDOT!!  

DIMV, I'm a huge fan of much of what you write, but look man, YOU LIVE IN ARLINGTON.  Here's a shocker for you: it's an urban area!  There's going to be traffic.  If it were me, I'd prefer that traffic to be on 66 and not Route 50.  I'd prefer it to be on Metro above both, but it's simply not realistic to think that everyone is going to take Metro...or buses.  And for the people who, for a variety of reasons, literally cannot take Metro the commute on 66 is misery.  It's misery no matter which way you're going.  I used to sit for an hour between Tysons and the E St. exit going INTO the city at night.  Two lanes just aren't enough guys.  You can see that.  

Let's put it this way: we could make a lot of people's lives a little bit less miserable (widening 66) or we could keep a few people's lives (not like this is going to effect ALL or Arlington or something) status quo.  If you're not one of the few, this is a no brainer.  

If we just listened to the interests of every single person who complained about people building infrastructure near their homes we'd have no highway system or even rail system to begin with.

n/t

My folks come in to do business there, but are blocked from exiting because of the morning HOV restrictions and the I66 inside-the-beltway bottleneck.  Perhaps we could petition the government to fix the broken hub 'n spoke air system that makes our regional airport useless?  Or maybe we could ask for real mass transit that works in rural Virginia?  How about decent train service that turns a 2 hour drive into a 4 hour train ride + 1 hour car roundtrip?  But there won't be a city bus, or metro route into the Shenandoah Valley anytime soon.

So we got problems, you got problems and I'm really not interested in the latest conspiracy theory from Arlington.  I want constructive, comprehensive, low-drama suggestions...and I want fast, unfettered access to MY nation's Capital.

It's about the fact that adding more lanes to highways it antiquated thinking at a time when we need to be moving in a completely different direction.  In short, it's terrible public policy, whether it's in Arlington or anywhere else, with very few exceptions (can't think of any right now). Instead of adding lanes or cutting through cities (thankfully, that craziness largely went out of fashion years ago), we should be investing in mass transit, smart growth, etc.

So it is silly to make it out to be some grand secret plan to pave Arlington, or shove an exhaust pipe down Arlingtonian's throats.  This really isn't about Arlington, it just happens to be plopped astride the yellow-brick road.  Which if we were being honest, is why most people live there.

Politics is the art of the possible, and after 30 years of increasing gridlock in Arlington/Fairfax/Loudoun the growth has far outstripped "smart"; there is no consensus for mass transit, and there are too few skilled politicians capable of persuading otherwise.  

It hasn't been smart at all, with a few exceptions like the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in Arlington.  Note: very little traffic in Arlington despite 200,000 people living in a very small county in terms of land area...

Where?  You couldn't be talk about Glebe, 50, or Route 1 (Jefferson-Davis Highway), traffic around Pentagon & Crystal City, traffic leading up to the Key bridge.  I'm not on Wilson or Washington during the week, but I can't imagine they are pleasant either.  Maybe in the tony neighborhoods of Northern Arlington County?

but the traffic in Arlington, given its population and economic activity, is not bad at all, certainly not compared to what it would be if not for "smart growth," Metro, etc.  

We need smart growth and public transit, not more incentive to sprawl.

and they'll tell you that a capital city needs to have a streamlined access network to get west of the city as soon as possible since prevailing winds in the northern hemisphere go from west to east. I-66 is NOT just about "sprawl" and protecting the rights of Arlington, its about protecting our capital city and our nation's government. If we're spending billions of dollars on homeland security we should at least spend some money to make I-66 into a highway that isn't a disgrace and one that would allow for people to escape the city if God forbid something horrible happen.

Prevailing winds?  Streamlined access network?  Wow, and I thought the Pentagon budget analysts were full of it.  We're spending billions on homeland security measures that actually have something to do with protecting the homeland.

Sorry, this is such a red herring it's just ridiculous.

Arlington has good reasons to be concerned about this.  Your cavalier willingness to dismiss them as just provincial NIMBYism is frankly arrogant, insulting, and very, very wrong-headed.

I agree that having more lanes into DC is desirable.  But the money being spent has to be weighed against impacts, promises made (if we cannot honor them what does it say to our collective political system--do not underestimate how important this type of consideration is and its potential to undermine trust and civility in political considerations--the very backbone of American compromise), and most importantly, priorities for where that transportation money should be spent.

I-66 is not a disgrace, and actually functions much as it was envisioned to function.  To insinuate expanding I-66 is about "protecting our capital city and our nation's government" is preposterous and laughable.  If there was a real threat to the capital city, another lane on I-66 does almost NOTHING to protect it or the city's inhabitants.  Period.  

I actually support the idea of allowing an additional lane on OUTBOUND I-66 past the Ballston area because the cost is minimal, it would require little disturbance of any "hard" infrastructure, and might help alleviate some pre- & post-rush traffic when HOV restrictions are lifted in the evening.

Solutions to traffic WILL NOT COME, however, by building more and bigger highways.  The solutions are ONLY possible through land use reform, massive mass transit investment and innovation, and by anchoring mass transit with a rail backbone (and I'm not just thinking a regional Metro).  There simply isn't enough space for every American to have his/her little white-picket-fenced half-acre and be able to drive two hours every day to where they need to be to work.  This is not sustainable from a land resource nor from energy resource perspectives, doesn't make for good communities, fails to protect the core of our nation's long-term economic base of agricultural production, and simply is way, way too expensive from an infrastrucutre standpoint.

Americans love their cars.  But this love affair has a cost, and we better get a grip on that reality before we set ourselves up for irreversable failure.  This I-66 issue is a great place to start.

You definitely get the RK "gold star" award for today for sustained thoughtful, articulate, helpful, high-quality comments.  Thank you!

This "national security" rationale is utterly absurd, as you point out.  As if adding one lane to I-66 inside the Beltway would make a damn bit of difference in the event of an evacuation of DC.  I mean, see how well the traffic moves when you get past Arlington and it switches to 3 lanes.  That's right, it's still gridlocked all the way out, past Vienna towards Sprawlsville/exurbia. That's because adding lanes just induces more sprawl and more traffic.  Basic stuff.

By the way, wasn't national security the scare tactic they used in the 1950s (aka, the McCarthy era) to help ram through the interstate highway system without thinking it through? History repeats itself?

as rapidly as possible from the sprawl model of development.  Building more highways or adding lanes to existing ones is exactly the opposite direction we should be going right now.

but that ignores the fact that we've got a problem today and I haven't seen anyone address that fact with concrete alternative solutions for today.  You're talking solutions for the future, which is absolutely crucial.  I'm with you.  But it's not encouraging sprawl to widen 66 by a single lane.  It's still not gonna be all peaches and cream, but at least it should be more tolerable.  I mean, think about it: someone who would have a 2.5 hour commute from Gainesville is not going to all of a sudden give up their commuting plan because the trip from Tysons to the Potomac became slightly more tolerable.  You don't decide to move to Gainesville because the commute is only 2 hours now, not 2 and a half.  That's a small portion of their total commute.  

But it's a BIG portion of the Fairfax commuter's trip, and it seems to me that we'd be waaaaay better off if folks moved back in from Gainesville to Fairfax.  Isn't that what we want?  

I must say that I find it just a tiny bit hypocritical that the folks who are all decrying this are the same ones who don't have to traverse it on a daily basis.  You guys would just tell those who live in Fairfax County (not exactly the 'sprawlers' anymore) to just suffer?  Suck it up?  Awfully easy when it's not your time and money spent sitting, I think.  

Moreover, isn't it hugely wasteful of petroleum to have people sitting in traffic and not moving?  How is that helpful to the situation?  

While I kind of agree with you about the need to move away from sprawl growth, this isn't about some theoretical outgrowth that might happen. This is about a very real problem that affects at the very least hundreds of thousands each day. The sprawl has happened and its not going to be undone anytime soon. Also isn't it better to have the cars moving and polluting instead of sitting still wasting gas and pumping exhaust into the air?

cng, batteries, etc.

As was demonstrated in Crabgrass Frontiers, even before the horseless carriage, SOVs (like the mounted horse) have been the preferred means of locomotion since the early 19th century, if not before.

As described in Edge Cities, it's the individual autonomy that is valued and will not be surrendered by Americans without heavy governmental coercion which I pray we never see.    

Again as I said before, even if we achieve oil independence or God willing totally break our dependence on it, Americans are still going to want to drive. No amount of environmentalist sentiment or threats are going to change this anytime soon.

is littered with the rotting corpses, metaphorically speaking, of course, of people who were just certain, absolutely sure, that American would never sit in front of a box watching moving pictures, want to ride around in machines belching, ever learn to use computers, etc., etc., etc.

Besides, it is not about a reasonable amount of driving, but rather designing policies and creating infrastructure that makes sense both short-term and long.

You are comparing totally different things.  We aren't talking about some new invention that makes life easier or provides entertainment, but a fundamental change to a way American society works. I would love to see, and God willing it  will be, developed a clean running oil free car, but Americans will require some kind of personal vehicle. The way our cities and communities have already been developed demand it. People have talked about "sprawlsville" like it is going to go away. These houses and communities have already been built, people aren't going to abandon them just because the traffic is bad.

Also, I'm not attacking anyone, but it seems like some people want to punish those who disagree with their views of what development should be. Its like "Let those idiots who want to live out in "sprawlsville' deal with traffic, cause they choose to live in sprawl." I don't think any resident of Fairfax or "sprawlsville" is delusional enough to think that there will ever be super smooth traffic, but most have excepted this, kind of like residents of Arlington should except that by living in a metropolitan area they have both all the benefits and costs of doing so.

The point wasn't to compare a prediction of human behavior with the advent of a new invention, but rather to point out that cocksure predictions about what Americans will do or want in the future are often proven quite wrong.

But lets take it out of the realm of technological advancement. 100 years ago, would have found many people who could envision a society where black people and white people could freely marry? Homosexuals living openly in committed relationships? A woman running for president or vice-president (Hell, women couldn't even vote at the time).

Given a different alternative, or having one forced upon them, may make Americans behave differently.

But, hey, my wife thinks my analogies are ridiculous as well.

As for your second paragraph, I don't see that as an attack on anyone -- it is focused on the argument.  

From the posting guidelines; you can disagree without being disagreeable. If not, it's time to find another blog that has different rules (although these are pretty standard, we got 'em from MyDD).

* Users who unnecessarily bash or attack, including ad hominem attacks, any users on the site are subject to immediate banning.  Our actions will be dictated by the specific circumstances.

* Users that post comments that do nothing but name-call, denigrate other users, or make inflammatory remarks will be warned first and banned if warnings are not heeded.  Extreme violations will be banned outright.  

I don't know about you, but I think that pissing off a bunch of people in Arlington shouldn't matter when you could hypothetically evacuate 50% more people from DC in the event of a crisis. Since when is the capacity to save human lives a "red herring?" Its people like you who leave us vulnerable to accusations of being soft on national security from the Republican Party.

While I guess it doesn't rise to an ad hominem attack, it is a non-argument. Seriously, I have no dog in this fight, but surely you can contribute something more substantive.

As for the accusations about Democrats being soft on national defense, that actually has little to do with actual policies advocated by Progressives, and everything to do with the shameless willingness of the GOP and it enablers to distort facts and demagogue, IMHO.

My comment wasn't substantive. I was aware of that, which is why I wrote, "I have no dog in this fight." My comment was not about the issue at hand at all.

I have found some of the comments in this thread to be interesting, including yours. I thought this particular one crossed the line from argument to personal, and said so. My specific problem was your argument that giving short shrift to a national security argument in the context of a discussion about transportation development was somehow to blame in any degree for an ill-deserved reputation that Progressives were soft on defense was wrong and irrelevant.

I understand that my post was kind of inflammatory, I should have worded it a little less harshly. I totally agree with you though about the majority of the Progressive reputation for weakness on this subject is because of what you have said.

...ad hominem attacks are not allowed on this site. Per our posting guidelines, anyone who engages in ad hominem attacks is subject to being banned from RK.  It's your choice, but remember that you are free to make your points without ad hominem attacks, even if the editors, "front pagers," etc. disagree with you.  The key is to "disagree without being disagreeable," which shouldn't be difficult if you've got a strong argument and the facts on your side.

My arguments were really weak. Thanks for pointing out that not caring about the lives of the people of the the District of Columbia  is such a stronger argument.

I'm sorry if the first post could be construed as ad hominem. It's not, but I could see how some could read it as such. Although the one where I said "I don't care" was definitely not. I was criticizing a poster for chastising me about posting a "non-arguement" that didn't add to the discussion with a comment adding even less to the discussion. If pointing out hypocrisy is against the rules of this site, maybe they should be revisited.

That's such a good point.

Given that Arlington and Fairfax are basically built-out, it's hard to see how making I-66 functional as an interstate quality highway inside the Beltway is an incentive to sprawl.

Let me be sure I have this correctly: The organizing theme is all pavement is inherently evil.

Rail on Lowell! Your credibility on land use issues sinks with each posting.

The Washington Business Journal reported in March 2005:

The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration recently wrapped up work on a feasibility study to solve westbound gridlock on I-66 in Arlington and Fairfax counties. They determined that adding a third lane would be the best solution, but a poll of about 500 people who live near the area showed 47 percent of the residents prefer improvements to bus and rail service as the first option of reducing congestion.

Another 37 percent of those polled preferred widening I-66 and adding lanes as the best solution, and 12 percent recommended changes to HOV requirements or adding toll lanes. The studied area includes a 6.5-mile westbound stretch of the interstate, or roughly between the Rosslyn tunnel in Arlington and the Dulles Connector in Fairfax.

'According to the Washington Post poll of laid off workers at the Hometown Factory, 80% oppose outsourcing.'  Gee, ya think?  

So a poll of people who live near the area shows that even given that particularly interested sample size, less than half opposed it?  Wow, not exactly compelling, is it?

Am I wrong in thinking its strange that you are flat out ignoring the VDOT study mentioned in the article, which said "They determined that adding a third lane would be the best solution."  But instead highlight a study showing that less than half the residents oppose any kind of road widening?

The people who have a vested interested in building more road capacity recommend...more road capacity! :)

Why don't we completely ignore the Virginia Department of Transportation so in 20 years we're stuck in even more traffic and the local economy starts to falter because the standard of living is reduced by hippies who think that we can get around EVERY SINGLE PLACE people have to go by bikes and metro.

How you can say that those quotes imply what I'm saying is absurd. I realize most of them are your own quotes so I give you authority to say what they actually mean, but it could reasonably be inferred that that is what you meant. If you say otherwise you are blinded by your disdain for my opinions. You have repeatedly stated how people can't attack others and probably banned GeorgetownStudent because of what he said, but you have repeatedly made similar underhanded attacks at people differing from your view, maybe you should give yourself a warning or ban yourself. I mean fair is fair. Also my argument as to why I-66 should be widened is this:
These sprawling communities are already built, people live and work there. Widening the road, could allow for more building and development, no one is arguing that it wouldn't, but the more important thing is that widening would lessen traffic and allow thousands of Virginians to spend less time in their cars and more time doing something productive.

I accidentally posted this in the wrong place. Please excuse my momentary stupidity.

Yeah, because the VDOT makes money off the roads they build. Call me naive or whatever but I refuse to believe that the only reason they said that was because they have a vested interest in building roads. Using this thinking we could never believe government sponsored studies, because they are all lying to us to further their interests.

Because it highlights Wolf and Davis doing the hard work of real politics - taking an unpopular position to get something done, and refusing to bend to a strident minority.  

The "Arlington Civic Federation" has got to step up its game, or they are going to get punked on this thing.  They don't even know the scope of the problem, let alone the solution.

"Just Say No"?  Good luck with that.

Lowell's repeated reminders throughout this post? How many more times does he have to tell people to stay away from ad hominem attacks?  

The promise not to expand I-66 was not given in perpetuity.  It had a time limit, an expiration date, which date passed while Allen was Governor.  

Promise kept.

Adding capacity to I-66 takes traffic off of Route 50, Route 29, Route 7, the George Washington Parkway, the Beltway and many local streets inside Arlington. The Texas Traffic Institute has explained this phenomenon in multiple publications.

Those studies also demonstrate that roads move more people, in less time, at lower cost, with greater flexibility, than mass transit.

Fundamentally, Northern Virginia's population density is far too low to ever sustain a rail mass transit system without massive governmental subsidies. The Rail to Dulles studies demonstrate that.

As to pollution, I'm all for the elimination of the internal combustion engine.  Any fiscal stimulating package that gets passed next year should have very large sums allocated toward that end.

That is an entirely separate question from providing road capacity adequate to demonstrated need.

I've describe here before the map hanging in my office prepared by COG in the mid-60's.  The population and job projections for the year 2000 upon which it was based turned out to be spot on.

The only problem was that thousands of lanes miles shown on that road plan including 4 bridges across the Potomac were taken off the plan and never built.

Our elected officials (mostly Democrats) did this to us.    

Martin how can you say that Alexandria, Arligton and Fairfax are built out; but that we don't have the density to support mass transit.  
For an area that is built out, there sure is a lot of new housing stock going in at the moment, despite the recession.  

It is about the low-density population scattered west of Alexandria/Arlington.  The folks who won't see mass transit anytime soon, and for whom the POV is the only option...being held hostage by a few hundred NIMBYs in Arlington.

According to this article, "Most Arlington residents are opposed to a plan to add lanes to the highway." That includes Arlington County Board Member Chris Zimmerman, who says "What's proposed here is a gross waste of money...All you're doing is moving the bottlenecks around." It also includes Board Chairman Walter Tejada, who says "the state should be funding projects with strong community support that have demonstrated benefits. ... It doesn't make sense to do a project that could cost [more than] $85 million and will not solve the problems."

Here is a resolution passed by the Arlington County Board in April 2005.  Note that the Board calls for a number of "relatively low-cost, traffic-operation solutions such as HOV-3, reverse-commute HOV, HOV enforcement and transportation-demand-management programs."  It also "Requests that future I-66 corridor problem statements and priority criteria emphasize enhancing community livability and broader economic viability, in addition to the Dulles Corridor."

For a few more thoughts on this topic, see Nick Penning in the Arlington Connection. Nick knows what he's talking about.

No one cares about the residents of Arlington besides themselves. If Fairfax and Loudoun county drivers understood that the entire reason that they are stuck in traffic getting out of DC everyday is because of a selfish and self-centered segment of the population of Arlington County they'd probably curse the place while traveling through it every single day.

I'm sure if most people who don't live in Northern Virginia understood how great a deal for them the existing school funding formula is (like their representatives in the House of Delegates and Senate sure do!), most of them would oppose changing it as well.  Does that mean that it's fair for Fairfax to get .20 on the education dollar from Richmond?  Of course not.  But some in Fairfax realize that it's important for children in Wythe County to have an education as well and if that means we have to shoulder more of our own burden, then so be it.  

As Democrats, we generally believe strongly in the promise of the Commonwealth; that parochial interests shouldn't necessarily be determinative of state policy; that the good of all residents of Virginia should be considered.  

Well, while Arlington might be dead-set against this (which I'm not convinced of, honestly, but even if), that's not the end of the discussion.  What is best for ALL of the users of 66?  That should be the overarching concern and the answer seems very obvious to many of us non-Arlingtonians.    

What are the facts concerning this promise?  I mean, what exactly was the wording?  What their a time horizon on it?

From the comments above, this seems to be very important to some.

That article by Nick Penning in the Arlington Connection is yet another piece that talks about this promise that I-66 would never be more than 4 lanes.

I tried to research this promise -- which if true is an important issue because a high regard for integrity is still part of the culture of Virginia.  (At least that's my observation over the years.)

From what I can tell, there was a decision by Secretary Coleman in 1977 that I-66 would be limited to 4 lanes, and that decision was overturned by Congress in 1999.  Here's what I'm referencing:
http://www.roadstothefuture.co...

Here, as quoted in the above website, is the language repealing the Coleman decision:

Section 357 of the FHWA FY 2000 Appropriations Act (House Bill 2084) eliminates the overall Coleman Decision as follows:

(a) Notwithstanding the January 4, 1977, decision of the Secretary of Transportation that approved construction of Interstate Highway 66 between the Capital Beltway and Rosslyn, Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, in accordance with existing Federal and State law, shall hereafter have authority for operation, maintenance, and construction of Interstate Route 66 between Rosslyn and the Capital Beltway, except as noted in paragraph (b)

(b) The conditions in the Secretary's January 4, 1977 decision, that exclude heavy duty trucks and permit use by vehicles bound to or from Washington Dulles International Airport in the peak direction during peak hours, shall remain in effect.

From my review of the history, there wasn't any promise made to Arlington.  Rather, it appears that there was a bare knuckles legal and political brawl that lasted years and was only ended by a compromise that involved some serious arm twisting.

Why don't we add an elevated deck to 66, then you don't need to expand the lanes outward.  You could have those be express lanes that carry only traffic coming from beyond the belt with no exits until you get to DC.  But you still hit a bottleneck at the bridge.  =(

Hey and you guys feel bad about 66, when are they going to widen 395?  If they would just fix that Duke Street exit, that would make things so much better.  All we're paying Fluor to do is paint some different lines on the HOV lanes (basically eliminating the shoulder), and that's a lot of money for a fancy paint job.  =)

the asinine bottleneck on 395 between Fullerton Lane and Lorton. That really is an easy fix that would increase the quality of life of folks living in southern Fairfax and PWC without breaking the bank.

As to this debate, I think we need more lanes AND a lot more mass transit, different land use policies, and policies that get us off of carbon fuels that are extracted (whether by a combination of switching to hybrid vehicles, biofuels, or other new technologies). I also think we'll need some congestion pricing model for driving into DC to reduce the traffic bottlenecks at the bridges.  

n/t

Build an 8 level parking garage on every remaining flat parking lot at Vienna and other orange line stations in Northern Virginia.  My guess is that would increase the parking capacity at Vienna alone by 4000-6000 at least; it would be cheaper than building new highway lanes; and the parking garages would generate revenue and pay for themselves. Put in lighting systems like at BWI airport to direct people into vacant spaces in the garages.

As for evacuation plans, I don't know much about the current ones.  I'm assuming, though, that like in New Orleans, if DC is evacuating, all lanes on I-66 would become Westbound traffic lanes, which would double the capacity.

they are not mutually exclusive events.  And not everyone can fit on the Orange Crush.

I don't commute by bike, but I'd like to see improvements in bike trails and bike lanes to make that a real alternative.  With the electric bikes that are on the market now, bike commuting over long distances seems more feasible.

http://www.electric-bikes.com/...  

* Users who unnecessarily bash or attack, including ad hominem attacks, any users on the site are subject to immediate banning.  Our actions will be dictated by the specific circumstances.

* Users that post comments that do nothing but name-call, denigrate other users, or make inflammatory remarks will be warned first and banned if warnings are not heeded.  Extreme violations will be banned outright.  

To whom was this reminder directed?  This is definitely your show, so I just want to make sure the guilty party knows what they've done wrong.

The one above seemed pretty clear, but this one I couldn't figure out.

It's not like even if someone gets blocked your computers are gonna get confiscated. Hahaha. You can just make a new account. PS I still think it was really dumb how some individuals felt that they could completely trash governmental studies on DC evacuation strategies simply because they are so closed minded about widening 66 that they simply don't care about human lives. Who wouldn't get angry and somewhat discourteous when basically told that "Who cares? Everyone's gonna die if a disaster hits DC anyway. So let's not even try to assist in streamlining an evacuation in any way possible if God forbid it was ever needed."

is that just because this is the blogosphere doesn't mean people should not be treated with respect. Disagreeing with someone's statements is one thing - it is normally called healthy debate. There is no need to attack people you don't know. By demeaning others your arguments lose credibility.

Lowell's reminder is a good one for everyone. Get back to the issues, people! No one wants to read all the self-indulgent bickering.

you will abide by the posting guidelines. Period.

Just read through the thread.

Look, I don't understand why people are so caught up upon these "agreements" that were formulated like 30 years ago. Not only have millions of people moved into the DC area which makes it obvious that road networks need to be expanded, but most of the people who were in Arlington aren't even there anymore so it's not like you're breaking an agreement with a substantial majority of the present residents. Also, this is POLITICS not Sally's Tea Party. You can piss off a small minority as long as it benefits a majority of citizens (even if it is a small benefit). About the ratings, I don't see why people should be robbed of the ability to formulate an opinion about other people's postings. If someone labels my posting a 0 I'm not gonna have a nervous breakdown. So why are people getting so worked up over someone else's opinion? If you don't like a rating someone gives you, then just ignore it.