🚀 go-pugleaf

larry gross wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 02:24:05 -0500, Douglas Andrew Willinger
> <dougwill@idt.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Outer Beltway??
> >>
> >> > that has good
> >> > connect points at both ends.. and you pointed out the problem
> >> > with I-64. We simply must have corridors that are dedicated to through
> >> > traffic around these urban cores. Otherwise... we face a bleak future
> >> > IMHO.
> >>
> >> Congestion will always exist in large metropolitan areas during peak
> >> hours, IMO.  The solution is to allocate the regional transportation
> >> funds (road and transit) in such a way so as to maximize their
> >> effectiveness; so that congestion can be minimized as much as possible.
> >
> >How about constructing the through the city routes for I-66, I-270 and
> >I-95
> >for D.C.?  This would be far more effective for serving traffic than
> >outer, outer bypasses, that would require (for most people, probably) to
> >drive way out of there way to get somewhere.  Given the available right
> >of ways, the through the District of Columbia highways could certianaly
> >be constucted with reletively little envirnmental disruption and broad
> >societal benifit.
> >
> If anyone has read any of my posts, you know that I am opposed to
> roads that will damage/destroy significant natural and historic
> resources and spur growth where there currently little.

The roads I bring up can be built without damaging or destroying
significent and historic resources. (I should know- I lived in Takoma
Park, Maryland within 200 feet of where I-270 would logically enter the
District, and went to drafting school about 400 feet away from the
utility line clear-cut right of way that crosses University Boulevard
that would be the logical I-95 right of way.)
 
> I believe that the fundamental problem lies with the concept of trying
> to design the roads to relieve local congestion AND to provide
> capacity for intra-region travel. 

And that is what happened during the 1970s when I-95 for the District
was cancelled (along with the other District highways), and
consequentely, that section of the Capital Beltway was resigned as
I-495/I-95. 

> In a word - this does NOT work. 

True that what they did did could have worked better.

> Huge
> amounts of money are being spent trying to develop roads that will
> solve both problems. As soon as a 'local' new road is built - often
> called a bypass or outer beltway.. it becomes the engine for more land
> development 

So true, especially in northern Virginia.

> and soon it is only fit for local traffic. 

Not neccessarily.

> This has to
> change. It is a huge money sinkhole that results in ineffective
> transportation solutions.

Especially with everything so spread out.

> Ask anyone who has tried to travel the East Coast through Wash. D.C.
> and you will find out what a terrible mess Washington is considered.

Sure, just look at its truncated highway network.

> People will literally drive a hundred miles out of their way to avoid
> it.

And with all the official emphasis upon outer, outer beltways and the
utter failure to adress the far, far more needed highways for the urban
core, that is exactly what will continue to happen.

Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio