I noticed an article in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star reporting on a VDOT report about future commuting behavior along I-95 when HOT lanes are completed. I was unable to find the report results on VDOT's site, so I have to depend on the Free Lance-Star for what details I could glean.
The gist of the survey results is that the vast majority of vanpoolers, carpoolers, sluggers and train riders will continue to use their same mode to commute along the I-95/I-395 corridor after HOT lanes are built and implemented. In fact, the type of commuter most likely to change their behavior is the SOV driver, presumably to another, more congestion- and environment-friendly mode. For people who are concerned that the construction of HOT lanes would siphon a lot of riders out of HOV modes into their SOV vehicles, this is a heartening result.
The survey polled 3,289 commuters. Here's how many said they would will stick with their current method of commuting:
95 percent of vanpoolers
91 percent of bus riders
86 percent of train riders
82 percent slugs
81 percent of carpoolers
53 percent of solo drivers
Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section published an op-ed piece by Bruce Wright, chairman of Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling that was spot on. His key point being that as Virginia moves forward with $1.7 billion of investment to move cars better (the new HOT Lanes), the state absolutely needs to think comprehensively about other modes--in particular cycling. Currently it is difficult or impossible to cross the beltway on a bicycle along most routes. Although I have heard of people doing it, it's pretty terrifying for me to imagine riding on Route 50 where it crosses I-495. Most of the other crossings are no better. There are undoubtedly thousands of people who live only a few miles from their jobs or from other places they want to go, but the Beltway is in between, forcing them to drive those short distances.
In fact, VDOT's Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations makes this statement: "The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will initiate all highway construction projects with the presumption that the projects shall accommodate bicycling and walking." Here's a golden opportunity for VDOT to demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service and--in contrast to its performance as reported in a previous post on a VDOT missed opportunity--really understands the value of bicycling and walking as viable travel choices.
Thanks, Bruce, for getting this key issue into the Post where our policy makers are more likely to see it.
About a month ago VDOT repaved a section of North Glebe Rd. in Arlington. According to Charlie Denney, Arlington's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator, VDOT's guidelines require them to make accommodations for bicycles when doing work like this on state highways. For this project that meant that they should restripe the road to allow for bike lanes--or at least narrow the inside lane and widen the outside lane to make more space for cars and bikes to share.
Charlie was in touch with VDOT on the day they were doing the lane painting to remind them of their own guidelines. However, he was unsuccessful in getting them to make any bike-friendly changes to the standard lane widths--a missed opportunity.
According to Charlie, one VDOT official said that before they could make any changes to the plan there would have to be a new road capacity engineering study undertaken. This is, of course, ridiculous, since there would be no actual changes to the lane configurations, intersections or anything--the paint on the road would be moved over a foot or two: no change in capacity. When I hear things like that I often wonder if VDOT includes in their job postings the statement, "Common sense not required," or "Do not expect to be empowered to make intelligent decisions on your own."
Coincidentally, I ride my bike on that section of Glebe Road 2-3 times per week, and I have been paying attention to how the cars and I interact. My experience is that by not narrowing the inside lane to make the outside lane wider, VDOT has actually REDUCED the capacity of the road. 
Here's why: I have observed that cars in the outside lane do not feel comfortable passing me in the space provided, so they move over into the middle lane. If there are cars traveling in that lane, then they need to slow and wait for an opening. My presence makes the road effectively one lane (for cars) in my direction rather than two--decreasing the capacity. If there were a bike lane, both the cars and the bike rider (me) would have a defined space to travel in, and both safety and capacity would be improved.
So here's a case where the attitude that roads are for cars only has created a disservice for all road users--a lose-lose.
Today's Washington Post article announcing that work on the N. Virginia HOT lanes will start up early next year is bound to create a lot of "traffic" here, on other blogs and in forums of all types. I think it's great that so many people are really thinking about how to deal with the undeniable problem of traffic congestion in the DC area. And clearly there are differing opinions, which--at least here on the CommuterPage blog--I hope we can express with mutual respect and thoughtfulness.
Problems with traffic congestion are not unique to Washington. One of the great things about our big ol' US of A is that we are big; we have 50 states; we have scores of metropolitan areas. What that means is that we can try different things in different places and learn from those experiences. I'm sure that other metro areas will be watching to see what happens here. "But I don't wanna be the guinea pig," I can hear from some. That's NIMBYism writ large: put it somewhere else; let someone else try it first; make them pay for it. . . .Take that attitude universal and nothing ever happens anywhere at all.
Is this model perfect? I doubt it. Should we allow private ownership of a public good? There's definitely
some validity to that point. Will the new HOT lanes be completely fair for all users? It's impossible to be completely fair (and definitions of fair are not even consistent). Will the money get inappropriately used, politicized or even wasted somehow? Um. . .this is DC. Do we need to do something? Absolutely.
I'm excited to see our leaders taking action on something innovative and even controversial with the potential for some real gains. If only they would take a similar attitude towards the tunnel in Tyson's corner--bold and innovative instead of trapped in a bureaucratic morass. Maybe that's the real lesson of these HOT lanes. Look how fast they went from crazy idea to implementation. And how long have we been pursuing that rail line?
There has been tremendous coverage in the last month regarding Virginia's new fines for reckless driving and other lawbreaking on the roads.
(A list of the exact fines can be found in this Washington Post article)
(More: ABC News story, Marc Fisher column, list of many articles)
Recent articles have all covered the outcry and rage--seemingly unanimous, or at least widespread--over the outrageousness of these fines. What is much harder to measure, but I believe exists to a great degree, is the support from hundreds of thousands of safe drivers in Virginia. Let the record state that I support strong fines for reckless driving and other unsafe behavior. I am not the slightest bit outraged, because I have absolutely no concern that I will ever be subject to one of these fines, and if they serve to keep people focused on their driving behavior, then good.
I agree that the legislature should look at making improvements to the law. It ought to include out-of-state drivers, too.
It doesn't make much sense that a speeding VA driver is somehow more dangerous than a speeding Maryland driver who happens to be in Virginia.Judges should be given a little leeway to make decisions about those (sarcasm alert!) hundreds of pregnant women rushing to hospitals.
Finland has a progressive system in which fines are pegged to income. There's a certain elegance to this idea, essentially penalizing people with more equal amounts of pain ($300,000/year lawyer fined $3,000; $42,000/year teacher fined $420). Back in 2004, Dr. Gridlock came out opposed to this idea, and despite its appeal to fairness, I think it would be politically impossible in the US.
Is this how we should fund our transportation improvements? Probably not, although having the fines go to providing people with safer alternatives to driving is certainly a good place to put the fine dollars. 
There's the odd inverse relationship between success (more safe driving) and funding. If hugely successful at deterring bad driving, the amount of money collected would plummet, and we'd have to go back and figure out something else--something more dependable and regular. As I mentioned in my post the other day, a more direct relationship between use of the system and funding would be better, i.e., tolls and congestion charges that charge people for using the roads.
Posts
All Comments
