ACST Statement at Feb 2015 TPB Meeting

Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation

Statement to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board

by Allen Muchnick, president, February 18, 2015

I’m Allen Muchnick with the Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation.  While VDOT’s proposal for I-66 inside the Beltway offers great potential, we have three major concerns.  First, VDOT has not yet committed to a robust and expedient implementation of the many non-roadway multimodal improvements that previous studies have shown are essential to effectively move people in the corridor.  Second, VDOT has not yet committed to fully, fairly, and openly evaluate the purpose and need--and all reasonable alternatives--for any additional widening of I-66 and to adequately avoid, minimize, and mitigate the negative impacts of that widening.  Third, VDOT has not yet committed to daily durations of congestion pricing and HOV restrictions that would largely or completely eliminate weekday congestion on I-66.

Because VDOT is subject to external political pressures, the agency has long failed to effectively manage its HOV facilities and thereby incentivize public transportation and ridesharing.  Indeed, VDOT’s chronic failure to increase the HOV hours and occupancy requirements and to prevent rampant HOV cheating on I-66 is the impetus for both new I-66 projects.  The I-495 and I-95 Express Lane projects were both originally promised to include robust bus transit improvements that have not materialized, and the Washington Post just reported that HOV vehicles account for only one-third of the daily traffic on the new I-95 Express Lanes, a facility that was originally built as an exclusive busway.  Consistent with this pattern, VDOT’s revised CLRP Project Description Forms for both I-66 projects lack the Congestion Management Documentation Forms, directed under Item 32c.

Except to eliminate short bottlenecks and facilitate merging, VDOT’s newly proposed I-66 widening would directly undermine the regional objectives of reduced traffic congestion, reduced VMT and carbon emissions, increased use of public transit and other SOV alternatives, and the greater vitality of regional activity centers, by increasing vehicular travel in the regional core by what could exceed 30,000 added daily trips (1,500 vehicles/lane/hour added capacity x 2 lanes x 10).  By contrast, modest I-66 corridor transit improvements, such as running all eight-car Metrorail trains and adding just 30 commuter buses per hour, would move many more people than two more I-66 vehicle lanes, and there seems to be no way to widen I-66 eastbound without creating new bottlenecks.

Thus, we ask that VDOT’s CLRP amendment for I-66 inside the Beltway provide three clear assurances: 1) VDOT will commit to a robust and expedient implementation schedule for the non-roadway multimodal improvements by September 2015;  2) VDOT will fully, fairly, and openly evaluate the purpose and need--and all reasonable alternatives--for any yet-unbuilt I-66 widening and will adequately avoid, minimize, and mitigate the negative impacts of that widening, including on noise, water quality, parkland, wetlands, and trails; and 3) VDOT will establish daily durations of congestion pricing and HOV restrictions that largely or completely eliminate weekday congestion on I-66.  

ACST Statement at Jan. 2015 TPB Meeting

Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation

Statement to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board

by Allen Muchnick, president, January 21, 2015

I’m Allen Muchnick with the Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation (or ACST).  Since 1999, ACST has advocated "wiser, not wider" management and multimodal improvements to I-66 inside the Beltway to most effectively move people and minimize highway congestion and travel times.

VDOT’s proposal to convert I-66 inside the Beltway into a High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT-3) facility, in both directions, during peak periods only, is the sort of smart, cost-effective, and permanent solution to I-66 traffic congestion that ACST has advocated for the past 15 years.  We thank the TPB for repeatedly pushing VDOT to conduct a full, fair, and transparent study leading to a long-term strategic plan for effectively managing the I-66 multimodal corridor, which includes two Metrorail lines, several parallel arterial roadways, two regional bikeways, and serves many commuter buses and carpools.  While not perfect or complete, VDOT’s one-year I-66 inside the Beltway Multimodal Study was a commendable beginning, especially considering its time and financial constraints, and VDOT wisely directed the project team to refine the study’s recommendations into a Supplemental Final Report dated August 2013.   We also applaud Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne for boldly directing VDOT to implement the study’s recommended integrated multimodal packages and, in particular, to expeditiously initiate peak-period congestion pricing on I-66 in both directions.

Public opposition to HOT lanes, especially lanes that were previously toll-free, will require VDOT to conduct rigorous analyses and effective public outreach to demonstrate the wisdom of the proposed HOV-2 to HOT-3 conversion.  To be truly effective, the new HOT hours should at least equal the current eight daily hours of HOV restrictions on I-66 outside the Beltway, and the toll revenue must pay the capital and operating costs of the many recommended, but still unfunded, multimodal corridor improvements.  Notably, VDOT should promptly develop and promote a detailed implementation schedule for the associated multimodal improvements.

We appreciate that VDOT does not currently propose any new widening of I-66 east of Ballston, and that most or all of its proposed I-66 widening may remain within the existing I-66 footprint.  Nevertheless, other than to eliminate short bottlenecks and facilitate merging, VDOT’s newly proposed I-66 widening would directly undermine the regional objectives of reduced traffic congestion, reduced VMT and carbon emissions, and increased use of public transit and other SOV alternatives, by increasing daily VMT in the regional core by what could exceed 30,000 added daily trips (1,500 vehicles/lane/hour added capacity x 2 lanes x 10).  Also, widening I-66 between I-495 and the Dulles Connector Road seems completely unnecessary and could worsen the already awful eastbound merge of I-66 and the Connector Road.

Since the HOT conversion with multimodal improvements and the newly proposed I-66 widening are at cross purposes and have divergent impacts and implementation schedules, VDOT should divide its new proposal for I-66 inside the Beltway into two distinct CLRP amendments.   In addition, VDOT’s proposed NEPA study should include a range of alternatives to further widening I-66, including multimodal and operating upgrades to Route 50.

ACST May 2013 Statement to Commonwealth Transportation Board

Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation

Statement to the Commonwealth Transportation Board

by Allen Muchnick, president, May 29, 2013

I’m Allen Muchnick with the Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation (or ACST).  Since 1999, ACST has advocated "wiser, not wider" traffic management and public transportation improvements to I-66 inside the Beltway to most effectively move more people and minimize highway congestion and travel times.

Last week, Secretary Connaughton was quoted in the Washington Examiner as advocating tolls on I-66 inside the Beltway: “If you don't want us to widen the road, then we're going to have to figure out a way to get more capacity out of the road, and I think express lanes are a way to do it.”

ACST and Arlington’s elected officials, in fact, agree strongly with Secretary Connaughton.  As early as January 2001, SRJ 411, a study resolution patroned by State Senator Whipple and co-patroned by rest of the Arlington delegation, directed VDOT to study “the imposition of variably priced tolls for use of Interstate 66, so that use of the facility at peak travel hours would be more costly than during off-peak hours”, although this provision was struck from SJR 411 prior to passage.

Moreover, despite the completion of DRPT’s I-66 BusTransit and TDM Study several years ago and VDOT’s I-66 Multimodal Study last June, the CTB has yet to advance any of the many previously unfunded transit, TDM, and traffic-management improvements recommended in those studies, including running all 8-car Metrorail trains during peak periods.

VDOT's I-66 Multimodal Study was a vital and commendable start toward developing a much-needed long-range management plan for this major regional corridor.  Its final report recommends strategically implementing an integrated multimodal package of highway management, rail and bus service improvements, transportation demand management measures, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and limited highway widening over the next 28 years.  A key finding was that--without expanded congestion management such as HOV restrictions or tolls--adding travel lanes to I-66 would undermine the objectives of moving more people and reducing travel times and highway congestion along the corridor.  Yet, in funding "Spot Improvement" #2 construction last June, the CTB advanced a 1.6-mile fourth westbound I-66 travel lane that will prove counterproductive until expanded HOV restrictions or tolls are finally put in place.

ACST supports converting I-66 inside the Beltway into a High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT) facility, in both directions--during peak periods only--as soon as feasible and in advance of any further highway widening.  Doing so would 1) immediately eliminate highway congestion and shorten auto and bus travel times, 2) effectively address problematic HOV enforcement and increase ride-sharing and transit use, 3) maximize freeway access for off-peak travel, and 4) generate much-needed revenue to strategically implement the many vital and otherwise unfunded I-66 Study recommendations.  While tolling an existing freeway is controversial, toll roads are now an essential and accepted part of our regional travel network, and effective leadership can sell the public on this change.  I-66 has existed as an HOV facility and Metrorail line for nearly 30 years.  A VDOT commitment to effectively manage these key assets is decades overdue.

Help Spread Our "Wiser, Not Wider" Message

ACST has thousands of bumper stickers with our slogan "I-66: Wiser, Not Wider" and needs your help to get them displayed on thousands of supporter autos in Northern Virginia.

The 3" x 11.5" bright and bold black-on-yellow design is readily noticed, and the quality vinyl (not paper) sticker removes quickly and cleanly once it's no longer needed or desired. Kudos to graphic artist Carla Uriona for the outstanding design!

These bumper stickers are for free distribution only and are not for sale. To receive two free bumper stickers by first-class mail, mail a self-addressed stamped #10 envelope (SASE) with first-class ($0.45) postage affixed to: ACST, 1030 S Barton St Unit 274, Arlington VA 22204.

We encourage civic associations, other local citizen groups, and local businesses to obtain bulk quantities of the bumper stickers for free distribution to I-66 corridor residents. No payment for bulk quantities is required, but we suggest a (tax-deductible) donation to ACST to at least cover reprinting costs. For bulk quantities, email allen22204@gmail.com or call 703-997-6667.

VDOT Expands Use of I-66 Ramp Meters

How outrageous is this?:

"VDOT installed ramp meters as part of its traffic management system for I-66...in 1985", yet for the next 24 years neglected to use this congestion management device at all except "eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening."

At the public input meetings for VDOT's "Idea-66" Feasibility Study more than five years ago, citizens and agency staff repeatedly suggested that VDOT make better use of its existing ramp meters. Moreover, the March 2005 "Idea-66" Final Report recommended (on page 7-1) an "evaluation of existing ramp metering" as an "interim [spot] improvement".

Why did VDOT not expand its use of the existing ramp meters many years ago, and why is VDOT still not using the ramp meters beyond weekday "rush hours"?

Furthermore, to what extent could the effective use of entrance ramp meters reduce or eliminate traffic congestion along the I-66 mainline? In particular, could expanded and effective ramp metering eliminate all "need" for "Spot Improvement #1", by better modulating the traffic flow from the Fairfax Drive on-ramp?

Allen Muchnick, president
Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation
PO Box 5574, Arlington VA 22205-5574
muchnick@capaccess.org
703-271-0895
http://www.acstnet.org
http://www.acstnet.blogspot.com

=====

[http://www.virginiadot.org/news/resources/Northern_Virginia/nova_Traffic_alert_120209.pdf]
alternatively: [http://tinyurl.com/ycnywqj]

VDOT Traffic Alert
VirginiaDOT.org

RELEASE: Immediate, December 2, 2009, NR09-89
CONTACT: Joan Morris
703-383-2465 (office)
571-238-5030 (cell)
Joan.Morris@VDOT.Virginia.gov

I-66 RAMP METERS TO OPERATE EAST AND WESTBOUND

CHANTILLY--Beginning December 7, the Virginia Department of Transportation will operate the I-66 ramp meters both east and westbound during rush hours. Ramp meters help ease congestion by regulating traffic flow onto the mainline through traffic signals located at the bottom of entrance ramps to the highway.

Until now, ramp meters have been used only eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening on I-66 inside the Capital Beltway.

"Our goal is to smooth traffic flow for those motorists with reverse commutes," said Dick Steeg, VDOT's Operations Director for the Northern Region. "The ramp meters should help ease backups on the mainline."

VDOT installed ramp meters as part of its traffic management system for I-66 and I-395 in 1985.

(END)

Action Alert for 10/27/08 VDOT Public Hearing

ARLINGTON COALITION FOR SENSIBLE TRANSPORTATION (ACST)
POSITIONS ON THE I-66 "SPOT IMPROVEMENTS" (10/27/08)

On October 27, 2008, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) held a public hearing to receive comments on its proposed design for three "spot improvements" along westbound I-66 in Arlington. Several project documents are posted for downloading.

Please submit written comments, opposing project construction, by Nov. 12, 2008, VDOT's comment deadline. Address your e-mail to meeting_comments@virginiadot.org and put "I-66 Spot Improvements PH Comments" in the subject line. Below are some points you might make.

ACST continues to oppose these "spot improvements" as unnecessary, unwarranted, and counterproductive. VDOT's arbitrary and capricious advancement of this project--disregarding the strong local opposition to widening I-66 and readily feasible, more effective, quicker, less costly, and longer-lasting traffic-management alternatives--violates federal transportation planning law (NEPA) and the landmark 1977 Coleman Decision. Moreover, as ACST has consistently maintained since 1999, the development and adoption of a comprehensive plan for the I-66 multimodal corridor must precede any decision to widen the highway, even for these so-called "spot improvements". Finally, VDOT's "studies" of it's proposed "spot improvements" did not adequately evaluate the many negative impacts of this project on traffic congestion and traffic safety and on our natural and human environment or consider better uses of the $30 million now earmarked under federal law to "widen I-66 westbound inside the Capital Beltway".

1) Take No Decision to Widen Without an Adopted Comprehensive Corridor Plan. Twice previously, in October 2001 and in May 2004, the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board had authorized VDOT to conduct funded multimodal corridor studies, but the first study was never initiated in 20 months, and the second study, dubbed "Idea-66", was clearly manipulated to recommend the third westbound travel lane requested by Congressman Frank Wolf. In fact, the March 2005 Final Report of VDOT's Idea-66 Study clearly showed that expanded HOV hours and/or automated tolls--permanently ensuring uncongested travel--and enhanced bus service—alternatives with no significant roadway construction--are each superior overall to another westbound travel lane.

More recently, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) has initiated a third multimodal corridor study (bus-transit study) for I-66 inside the Beltway. DRPT should broaden the scope of this study to evaluate how shoulder busways, expanded HOV hours, and/or automated tolls would impact I-66 and regional traffic and the viability of transit alternatives.

2) VDOT's March 2005 Idea-66 Final Report made a sham of the Idea-66 public process. None of the three "spot improvements" that VDOT has since advanced were clearly discussed anywhere in that report, although VDOT had already scoped this "spot improvement" project internally.

3) VDOT's Categorical Exclusion (CE) document is inappropriate and seriously flawed. Adding another freeway lane for a total of 4.3 miles is plainly an effort to significantly expand I-66 capacity for free SOV travel. That is most evident for "Improvement #2" which would create four westbound travel lanes for 1.5 miles, double the number agreed to under the Coleman Decision. The CE's claims of an adequate public process, of a lack of feasible and better interim alternatives, and of no substantial public controversy are all clearly false. In addition, the proposed extension of entrance and exit ramps for 1.1 to 1.7 miles is not required for safe traffic operations along westbound I-66.

4) The Commonwealth Transportation Board should drop "Improvement #3" (the still-unfunded easternmost segment) from VDOT's Six-Year Improvement Program because it would have the least benefits, even to reduce congestion for SOVs, and would create a new westbound bottleneck at the low-volume Glebe Rd exit, where three westbound lanes would decrease to two.

5) The Commonwealth Transportation Board should drop "Improvement #2" (the westernmost segment) from VDOT's Six-Year Improvement Program because it would undesirably expand freeway capacity for SOVs; increase traffic congestion elsewhere (including eastbound I-66); promote urban sprawl, global climate change, and foreign oil dependence; decrease ridesharing, transit use, and Metrorail fare revenues; and increase cut-through traffic on Lee Highway and Washington Blvd in Arlington to enter and exit I-66 in East Falls Church.

6) The Commonwealth Transportation Board should drop "Improvement #1" (the middle segment) from VDOT's Six-Year Improvement Program because narrowing the travel lanes and reducing safety shoulders would seriously degrade motorist safety and the clearing of traffic incidents. This segment would also create a new westbound bottleneck at the low-volume Sycamore St exit, where three westbound lanes would drop down to two, and the increased exiting traffic would endanger pedestrians walking to the East Falls Church Metro station.

7) VDOT has skirted The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by ignoring effective alternatives to these particular "spot improvements". NEPA mandates that all federally funded projects adequately consider all reasonable alternatives to the proposed "action" as well as all significant impacts on the natural and human environment, but VDOT's pursuit of "interim spot improvements" and the specific "improvements" being pursued are "arbitrary and capricious". VDOT evidently concocted the three "spot improvements" by late 2004 or early 2005 as a way to spend Rep. Frank Wolf's pending $27.6 million federal earmarks by skirting NEPA requirements. To at least minimally comply with NEPA, VDOT must fully and fairly study alternative feasible spot improvements and prepare at least an environmental assessment document for its proposed action.

For example, to improve highway safety, police enforcement, incident management, and emergency evacuations and to possibly move buses when the travel lanes are congested, VDOT could simply provide a continuous 12-ft wide inside paved shoulder, instead of discontinuous third-lane segments with substandard, narrow inside shoulders at some locations. Alternatively, or in addition, VDOT could advance shorter on-ramp extensions and/or provide extra police enforcement locations as superior spot improvements.

8) VDOT has failed to properly analyze the many negative Impacts of its proposed "improvements". VDOT used a flawed traffic-modeling process to rationalize the proposed spot improvements, rather than a valid trip-generation model to appropriately forecast traffic impacts at the following locations: a) along each widened I-66 segment and the connecting freeway segments immediately east and west, b) along eastbound I-66 (where traffic congestion is already worse), and c) at nearby connecting intersections (including on Lee Hwy, Glebe Rd, Sycamore St, and Route 7). In addition, VDOT must show how creating two new westbound bottlenecks (at the low-volume Glebe Rd and Sycamore St exits) and narrowing safety shoulders would affect traffic congestion, safety, and incident management. By inducing new auto trips and auto-dependent development while not improving or incentivizing non-auto travel, the proposed construction would increase noise, water, and air pollution, including climate change carbon dioxide emissions.

Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation
PO Box 5574, Arlington VA 22205-5574
703-271-0895
info@acstnet.org
http://www.acstnet.org
http://www.acstnet.blogspot.com