I-270 is not the only road widening project under consideration by the state. The Maryland Department of Transportation is proposing to widen I-97 between Baltimore and Annapolis and to widen part of the Baltimore Beltway. Howard County Executive Ken Ulman wants the state to widen US-29 near Columbia. And the state is spending $830 million to install Express Toll Lanes on I-95 northeast of Baltimore.
So where are the protests from the Baltimore Sun against these projects? Where is the opposing petition drive from D.C. blogs? And where is the money-raising campaign from Action Committee for Transit?
Could it be that only MoCo road widening projects are evil?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Widening Projects Abound
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Isn't it about time Adam abandoned the pretense of neutrality on the I-270 project? He's clearly in a cheerleading contest with Rich Parsons for the title of biggest fan of an asphalt solution.
Anyway, Adam is proposing an equivalency between the proposed $4.6 billion I-270 lane--widening boondoggle and several other proposed projects that would increase lane capacity around the state. He wonder why the Baltimore Sun isn't opposing those projects?
I can't speak for the editorial board, but I can answer for the transportation columnist, who happens to be me.
First of all, I haven't endorsed any of the projects Adam cites. I don't have enough information to express an opinion one way or another. But it is clear that the equivalency Adam suggests is patently bogus.
First, the Interstate 97 project is being proposed in the context of improved handling of freight traffic. There is clearly no justification for widening I-97 for commuter traffic alone.
With freight traffic, there can be no transit alternative such as has been proposed for the I-270 corridor. Freight can't hop on a bus. It can, however, be shifted to rails -- and that's part of the I-97 corridor study.
The U.S. 29 case is far different from I-270. Route 29 is a six-lane highway through most of Montgomery County, then narrows to two lanes around Burtonsville and expands again to three in the Columbia area. The Howard County executive wants to widen the two-lane portion.
I'd like to hear the arguments on both sides about this project, but it's clearly a different proposition from widening a highway at its far end. Adam might also want to check a map to determine which county other than Howard shares the U.S. 29 corridor.
From an economic development standpoint, I would argue that employment growth in the 29 corridor is far preferable to growth in the already saturated I-270 corridor because it is closer to the center of the state and thus accessible to more Marylanders. Let's give eastern Montgomery a chance for once.
On Beltway widenings, let's not go there. Baltimore has a Beltway, so does Washington. Sometimes your beltway needs help, sometimes ours does. They tend to balance off.
Thanks, Baltimore Guy. I am amused that a mainstream media reporter who long ago abandoned any objectivity on I-270 is questioning the impartiality of a blogger. These are interesting times for the media.
By the way, the same freight study that recommends widening I-97 also recommends widening I-270. The study says on page 17, "While the State’s largest concentration of freight-intensive industries and freight flows will remain in the I-95 corridor, freight industries and the resulting goods movement in the I-270 corridor are projected to grow at a faster rate."
By Adam's standard of intellectual consistency, shouldn't Rich Parsons be required to write a detailed post attacking the Red Line and explaining why Baltimore would be better off spending the money on street widening?
And if David Alpert did post a critique of one of the other road widening projects Adam mentions, wouldn't Adam respond by arguing, among other things, that David lives in DC and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about, as Adam did in response to the GGW posts arguing against the I-270 widening?
Casey Anderson
We're in a world of multi-tasking in the media today, Adam. Michael Dresser the reporter doesn't have a position on I-270. Michael Dresser the columnist and blogger does. These are indeed interesting times.
So if a freight study says we have to widen highways, we just have to fall in lockstep behind the study?
Here's the thing about studies such as that one: They tend to focus on one problem to the exclusion of all other considerations. The freight study asks how can we move freight through faster? A corridor study looks at how many vehicles can we move through a corridor. Neither takes much time examining the consequences of the obvious "solutions." Neither assesses the collateral damage of traditional approaches.
It's clear that the driving force behind the gold-plated I-270 proposal is that we have to do everything in our power to appease the Boss of our transportation system: the singly occupied passengter vehicle operated by an affluent individual (hence the ETL solution). The Boss expects to be catered to because that's the treatment he got through the entire second half of the Twentieth Century.
But it's not the Twentieth Century any longer, Adam. Paradigms shift, and even bloggers need to shift with them.
Post a Comment