Response to: The truth behind I-66 inside the Beltway Commentary from Aubrey Layne, Virginia Secretary of Transportation By Bob Carlston, I-66 Traveler & Taxpayer Virginians deserve an informed & honest discussion about the I-66 transportation “improvement” plans & proposals. Unfortunately, Mr. Layne’s commentary published on the WTOP website on 24 October, 2015 (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2015/10/commentary-the-truthbehind-i-66-inside-the-beltway/) does not provide that. Instead, he makes inaccurate partisan claims that only add frustration to Northern Virginia taxpayers & I-66 commuters about the proposed changes. His claim of being “in the interest of good public policy” on this issue appears to be either confused, or naive. My interest in this response is to highlight the less than fully informative information contained in the commentary, and to add facts to the discussion from the perspective of the true experts, the citizens who use the transportation system regularly, have made life decisions based on the existing transportation system, and paid for the existing infrastructure multiple times up to this point. These are the citizens that will be impacted by any implemented changes. Based on that, these people are in the best position to determine potential “value” of any proposed changes. Sadly, the process to date has not included an effective dialog with these citizens. As is typically done, plans & studies were conducted
without the affected constituency having adequate involvement. It was conducted by “experts” with little/no actual experience in living in the area long term, and traveling on these roads for an extended period of time. I am sure that they have adequate knowledge of traffic studies & analysis, queueing theory, and toll road mechanics & effects. This knowledge is useful in this discussion, but only as a tool to test alternatives that have been vetted & discussed with the affected constituency to determine potential value. Based on my assertions above, I have the following facts to add to Mr. Layne’s commentary. Claim 1: “Despite unfounded claims to the contrary, dynamic tolling on I-66 will reduce congestion.” Response 1: Tolling is typically the very last option considered worldwide for reducing congestion. It is used where traffic must be “controlled”, metered, and rerouted because no options are available to provide adequate road infrastructure. Dynamic tolling on roads is an effective alternative in the right circumstances. I would assert that those circumstances are not fully in play for this situation. Worldwide, these “pay for use” toll environments are created where there are no other alternatives for dealing with traffic congestion. They have been the best alternative where there is no available space to widen roads, improve existing intersections & exits, or use other means to increase available lanes for traffic. They have also provided an effective process to pay for roads where property, sales, fuel, & income taxes are not in place to fund
necessary investment. I have experienced this in Singapore, China, Japan, & Malaysia. In the I-66 situation, both inside the Beltway, and outside the Beltway, neither of the above mentioned circumstances exist. Land is available to increase the number of lanes and supporting connection points, and an effective tax base from property, fuel, income, personal property, business, has provided funds for this continually. The problem in this situation is that the existing traffic infrastructure has been implemented abysmally over a long period of time, with significant politics, bad planning, and poor use of funds leading to today’s traffic nightmare. It does not take a rocket/traffic scientist to see that the design & construction of the I-66 corridor conflicts with the most basic road design requirements. Where effective road design mandates additional lanes in the direction of increased traffic density, I-66 delivers fewer lanes in that direction. How could anyone think that this situation can be maintained and serve as effective? The proposed toll plans will allow a small percentage of people with money to burn to use the toll lanes, but will cause most drivers to choose alternative routes based on their ability to pay. There are far better alternatives for addressing I-66 traffic congestion, and anyone that uses these roads today, and has watched to macabre comedy of infrastructure development for the I-66 corridor over the last few decades, knows this. Claim 2: “The McAuliffe’s administration’s proposed changes will only add more choices for I-66 commuters without impacting current HOV commuters.”
Response 2: The McAuliffe’s administration’s proposed changes will only provide fewer unpaid traffic lanes than exist today, will force commuters to pay additional fees for driving on roads paid for at least twice already through taxes, and force drivers to drive in toll lanes that are unnecessary. Delivering fewer open traffic lanes than currently exist, not addressing the need to correct the badly designed & implemented I-66 situation with needed lanes in the direction of traffic density, and forcing people to pay expensive tolls on roads they have already paid for seems like madness to anyone that drives the I-66 corridor. Currently, there are 3 or 4 open lanes outside of the Beltway depending on time of day & traffic restrictions, and 2 non-toll restricted lanes inside the Beltway. Unfortunately, the “madness” of the politics & poor choices continues for I-66. In support of that assertion, I offer the following facts. The I-66 right of way inside the Beltway was on the maps for decades as the Washington & Old Dominion Railroad. The original I-66 plan called for an 8 lane highway. That inside the Beltway portion of I-66 was proposed in 1956. As the W&OD property was acquired, lawsuits were filed to block the project. VDOT dropped the number of lanes to 4 and added restrictions to their use in response to these lawsuits, and that delivered the existing highway, far below the needed 1977 capacity. Clearly VDOT’s original plan followed effective design requirements, but this effective design was stopped, creating the current traffic congestion we see today. At least 4 decades will have passed before the proposed “improvements” can be delivered for the I-66 corridor. The
original plan 38+ years ago called for 8 traffic lanes. In all of that time, the I-66 narrative has never included an open & honest discussion about the best possible alternatives for improving the corridor. I make this assertion because there has never been honest consideration of adding the needed lanes. The right of way clearly has the capacity for the lanes. The initial VDOT plans illustrate this. The lanes are clearly needed, as the current traffic congestion shows. Yet, this consideration has never been viewed as a possible political choice. When the project to build the I-66 lanes inside the Beltway was initiated, the Federal Government decided to conduct a social experiment, paying the workers on the project significantly more than existing wages for their work. While an honorable idea, this significantly increased the costs for the road, along with the Metro work in the median, for a road that was already too small to support 1977 traffic needs. Improvements to I-66 have been conducted since the initial opening of the interstate, but the core problem with the road design has never been addressed. Citizens in Northern Virginia have paid their taxes which should be funding the needed “real” improvements for almost 4 decades, but most of those funds were diverted to other Virginia projects. All of the “choices” alluded to by Mr. Layne are poor ones for drivers on I-66, and definitely not worth additional funding through taxes or tolls. These choices are… Choice 1 would be to pay an additional $4,250/year of tolls for the inside the Beltway portion of I-66, which does not include the
unspecified cost of tolls outside the Beltway for existing open lanes that will be converted to toll. Choice 2 will be to utilize other roads as alternatives, and these will have increased traffic because of the expensive tolls charged, additional restrictions to Clean Fuel Vehicles, and tolls charged in directions where there are no restrictions today. Choice 3 is claimed to be more public transit options, but these are hoped for options at best. If they happen they could be great, but they are not visible as actual plans or commitments. Choice 4 might be increased carpooling, as the plans remove Clean Fuel Vehicle access to the roads without toll, and increase carpool restrictions to 3 passengers, from 2. In addition to available choices being poor ones, the funds from the tolls will not be earmarked to address the core problem of too few lanes. The stated commitment that “every cent from that tolling on I-66 will be used to even further reduce congestion in that corridor” is nebulous at best, provides no detail/transparency to intentions, and seems disingenuous at worst. This mantra is spoken & quoted verbatim in all official comments about the I-66 plans. Let’s examine the other claims Mr. Layne makes in this section of his commentary. “If you currently carpool through the corridor, you will ride free as you always have.” Have we heard this claim in regard to another contentious issue over the last few years? Would any rational person believe this even if it were true? Sadly, we know that it is not a true statement. Carpool limits have been stated to rise to 3
passengers, and Clean Fuel Vehicles that can drive in carpool lanes today will be eliminated from this alternative. “If you are a solo driver who used to have to exit I-66 and take secondary roads to and from work, you will now have the option to pay a toll and remain on I-66 all the way into the city.” While the claim is technically correct, I fail to see how spending 7.5% of the average Northern Virginia resident’s income for the privilege of that choice is any choice at all. “Despite the disinformation political opponents are disseminating, tolling would only be in effect during peak hours, and this proposal offers more drivers the option of a fast and reliable trip without impacting current HOV commuters.” While this claim might be possible, there is no commitment to this, and existing actions in Virginia suggest the claim is not true. All HOT lanes in Northern Virginia today charge tolls of varying amounts at all times. There are no times during any day of the week where tolls of some amount are not charged. Claim 3: “Travel times on parallel routes will either improve or stay the same.” Response 3: Travel times on parallel routes have little/no possibility of improving or staying the same. Traffic density will continue to increase throughout Northern Virginia, and the I-66 corridor traffic density will increase more than the Northern Virginia average, as it does today. As this density increases, traffic congestion will continue to get worse. That remains a fact of life as our population increases, and as the Washington DC area
continues to create jobs directly & indirectly supporting the US Federal Government. This is not a secret to anyone. The proposed plan provides only one additional lane for traffic, and the lane will be a very expensive toll lane. In addition, there will be fewer open lanes for traffic than there are today, as one of the existing open lanes will become toll only. It is not possible for 2017 traffic congestion to remain at today’s levels. Adding more vehicles to almost the same number of lanes, regardless of attempts to control people’s behavior through tolls & restrictions, make it impossible to deliver the needed service level. No science/engineering can make that happen. With a projected population increase of 15% through 2020 (http://statchatva.org/ Demographics Research Group @ UVA) there will be up to 15% more vehicles on the existing roads. While dynamic tolling can manage traffic flow, it cannot deliver the needed improvement to traffic congestion claimed by the proposer’s of the plan. It cannot deliver enough open road space to address the traffic congestion problems on I-66. Mr. Layne suggests that “Studies show dynamic tolling will manage traffic more efficiently on I-66 inside the Beltway and parallel roads. In fact, this proposal will reduce traffic on parallel routes heading to DC in the morning, by offering more solo drivers the choice of paying a toll and staying on I-66.” I would argue that with no additional lanes, far more vehicles using the fewer open lanes, and only a small percentage of drivers choosing to pay the tolls daily, there is no possibility that traffic can remain the same.
Claim 4: Toll revenues will be used to help move even more people through the corridor. Response 4: Toll revenues will be used without transparency, and they will not be used for the lanes needed since 1977. Unfortunately, Mr. Layne’s own words tell us that resolving the core issue with I-66 will not be addressed. The original design & construction that delivered a highway not meeting 1977 transportation design requirements, cannot be made to deliver the level of service needed in the corridor today, or in the future. There is no magic in dynamic tolling. It manages traffic flow, as best it can, within the constraints of the number of lanes available & the number of active vehicles in the queue. It cannot manufacture the needed road space missing from the original construction, and it cannot create the additional space needed from population & vehicle growth over the last 38 years. Mr. Layne states that “every cent from that tolling on I-66 will be used to even further reduce congestion in that corridor”. Does anyone see additional lanes being implemented in this comment? If you do, we could all use some of that cool-aid you are drinking. There is no commitment or intent in any of the plans, or in Mr. Layne’s words to deliver those traffic lanes. Why is that? Claim 5: Widening I-66 inside the Beltway will take place – if necessary. Response 5: Widening I-66 has been needed since the initial construction began in 1977. Based on 38+ years of growth &
history, along with the current plan’s lack of additional lanes, it is unlikely that funds will be directed towards this. Mr. Layne claims that “the Secretary of Transportation’s job”…”to ensure that transportation funds are spent wisely.” I think that we all can agree on that definition. In his defense, it is obvious that his job puts him in the position of needing to solve a long festering problem. Unfortunately, history of I-66 development, and the proposed plan for I-66 inside & outside the Beltway suggests that the definition will fall very far from the delivery. Claim 6: Doing nothing is not an option. Response 6: Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. There is no one in Northern Virginia that does not want the I-66 & surrounding area’s traffic congestion problems addressed effectively. Anyone claiming that others want to do “nothing” is promoting fantasy & divisiveness. Can our representatives please stop this insanity, and resolve problems as adults? Can we address the core issue with I-66 which is the number of lanes & the location of those lanes? Can we quit trying to “sell” the fantasy that control can solve what infrastructure cannot?