Would giving 301 a "freeway" style setup releive congestion? (or at least help?)

[darkriver4362]

I had heard somewhere (I forgot where, may have been 107.7) where someone suggested that 301 be given a format similar to Rt. 5 up by Clinton, no lights, just exits, from Rt. 5 on down past La Plata. I for one, think that it would help, I would be in favor of it. It just seems to make more sense than having traffic lights every 500 feet and having multiple mile long backups every day at both rush hours. What are your opinions??

 

[John Z]

Tough call. I have heard of a possible Waldorf "bypass" that would take through travelers around the entire Waldorf mess. The other proposal is just what you are suggesting. I think either one would be workable. It seems that a freeway-type setup would just look bad, especially if it was elevated and running right through the existing Rt. 301 location. Not that Waldorf has much going for it in the beauty department, however.... Either way it will take 20 years and a trillion dollars. That's the sucky part...

 

[TWL]

I don't travel out of St. Mary's too often but other than the MD5/228 and US301 intersection, are there any more major intersections in the area? If not they can put an overpass there. But, judging on the time it took for the Virginia Beach Blvd./Military Highway overpass in Norfolk, it'll take 5-10 years to complete.

 

[darkriver4362]

That really is the only "major" intersection, it's just the high number of the other medium to small intersections, each which Charles County feels should have their own, personal traffic light. The traffic setup in La Plata is also a joke.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by darkriver4362
no lights, just exits,

That would be nice on Rt. 235

At least to remove SOME of the ridiculous red-light delay.



Funny story: I'm driving down 235 at 9 PMish. NO cars anywhere. I come up to Exploration Dr. and as I approach the light turns red.

For nobody.

I sat there for a minute and a half like a complete ####ing simpleton for absolutely no reason at all. And I just KNOW that if I had run that red-light, a cop would have popped up out of nowhere and zapped me.



I'd like to spend 5 minutes alone in a room with the civil engineer responsible for the timing of the red-lights on 235.

 

[TWL]

Re: Re: Would giving 301 a "freeway" style setup releive congestion? (or at least help?)

Originally posted by Toxick
That would be nice on Rt. 235

At least to remove SOME of the ridiculous red-light delay.



Funny story: I'm driving down 235 at 9 PMish. NO cars anywhere. I come up to Exploration Dr. and as I approach the light turns red.

For nobody.

I sat there for a minute and a half like a complete ####ing simpleton for absolutely no reason at all. And I just KNOW that if I had run that red-light, a cop would have popped up out of nowhere and zapped me.



I'd like to spend 5 minutes alone in a room with the civil engineer responsible for the timing of the red-lights on 235.

I know what you mean. Before they started on the 3rd lanes along 235, at night all the lights from LP past Wildwood didn't turn red unless there was someone waiting to get onto 235. Now, every single light turns red no matter what.

 

[Ken King]

If they gave 301 that makeover wouldn't it draw more traffic by those trying to escape the beltway/interstate and result in a bigger nightmare?

 

[darkriver4362]

Never really thought about it, people might use it as their own DC bypass on a north/south I-95 route...good point...but something needs to be done where as people have to leave 2-3 hours early in order to get to work on time. I really don't think there is a simple solution....301 just can't handle any REAL volume of traffic, I remember when the sniper shootings were going on and they shut down 95 for a while, I was coming home from Baltimore, the route 97/3/301 way, and the traffic for the Harry Nice Bridge was literally into south Waldorf....it was NOT fun...

 

[huntr1]

The state has plans to EVENTUALLY do to 5/301 all the way TO Waldorf what they did in Clinton. However, these are the same idiots who have approved 2 new lights about 100 yards apart just north of Cedarville Rd. I can see adding the first one, but WHY THE HEIL DID THEY APPROVE THE SECOND ONE????????? The new neighborhood shoulda had their entrance off the road stub at the existing light there at the liquor store. Adding the second light will just F the traffic even more than it already is. It isn't the "major" intersections that screw up the traffic, it's the shear number of lights that does it. If they got rid of the 2 lights @ TB (Brandywine & Akokeek (sp) Roads) that would have a MAJOR positive impact upon the traffic all the way back to Waldorf.

 

[John Z]

Huntr - I totally agree with you on the two lights in Brandywine. It is amazing how much those lights back up traffic during the rush hours. They should either have one light, or put an interchange there.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Re: Re: Would giving 301 a "freeway" style setup releive congestion? (or at least help?)

Originally posted by Toxick

I'd like to spend 5 minutes alone in a room with the civil engineer responsible for the timing of the red-lights on 235.

That would probably be to your benefit....You would learn just how well you have it; what a good job SHA has done in balancing the conflicting traffic demands.

One local inefficiency does not a bad system make....It is easy to maximize the efficiency of each intersection, but that does not maximize the efficiency for the corridor.

Go ahead and try improving on the current progression bands....Betcha can't.

 

[Blondie76]

I can only image the traffic it will cause WHILE they are building (if it does get built).

 

[Toxick]

Re: Re: Re: Would giving 301 a "freeway" style setup releive congestion? (or at least help

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
That would probably be to your benefit....You would learn just how well you have it; what a good job SHA has done in balancing the conflicting traffic demands.

Please.

Those lights are geared to be as inefficient as possible. Inefficient.

Lemme 'splain - every time (not exaggerating - EVERY time) I am entering 235 from one of its many tributaries, and I come to a red stoplight. I will sit at the stop light looking in both directions at empty roads. Of course, I'm not talking about peak-times, just your average car-here-car-there 6-7PM traffic.

The funny part: when cars begin to approach (presumabley because the previous traffic light finally turned green) THEN the light for them turns red, and I get my green light.

Wow - maximized red-light time for everyone.


Color me spectacularly unimpressed.

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
Go ahead and try improving on the current progression bands....Betcha can't.

Because I'm not a civil engineer. Its not my job to improve it.

All I know is that the current system sucks the big purple hairy dong, and however you or anyone else rationalizes it, it will still suck. The problem is that the only real response I'm going to get is: ":shrug: I don't know what to tell you."


I do know that an overpass system, instead of a hundred ill-timed red lights, would ease the load.

 

[Broke90GSX]

I'm currently trying to draw up a revised area to the Brandywine Rt 5 area. In the morning traffic is backed up to the light at Cedarville Rd. All for 2 freekin lights. What a gawd damn joke. I have drafting experience, but no civil engineering experience. I'm sure the inspectors will just laugh & circular file my work.

Rob

 

[SurfaceTension]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Would giving 301 a "freeway" style setup releive congestion? (or at least

Originally posted by Toxick
Because I'm not a civil engineer. Its not my job to improve it.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, you just know that the system "sucks". As someone who has some experience with these systems, I know that it's not as bad as you portray.

Keep in mind that the system is designed to move the maximum number vehicles from Rt 4 to/from the Base with the least delay, while not affecting the side streets too badly. Period. It IS NOT designed to maximize Toxic's sole and specific commuting pleasure. There could be any number of reasons why you experience the delay you mention, from permanent engineering (intersection location within the progression band, desire to re-platoon the vehicles, conflicting/turning volumes at adjacent intersections,....), temporary construction issues (missing/uninstalled vehicle detectors, average speed variations due to construction, temporay lane drops...), maintenance issues (faulty/misadjusted vehicle detectors...), etc., etc.

Or maybe there really is a problem at your intersection that can be corrected without affecting the primary objective. Drop SHA a note & maybe they can resolve it...They can't fix something unless they know specifically what's broke (if anything).

Regardless, claiming that the 235 is designed to be as "inefficient as possible" is beyond ridiculous. With any luck, we will not experience a major coordination failure so you would see just how messed up it really could be.

Yes, an overpass/interchange/limited access system would obviously improve traffic. At at least a 10x project cost increase for right-of-way acquistion alone, we'd still be driving on a two-laner while waiting for funding. Assuming, of course, you could make it throught the lawsuits from the merchants along the existing road. I'll take the the current widening project over a future pie-in-the-sky anyday.

 

[Toxick]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would giving 301 a "freeway" style setup releive congestion? (or at le

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, you just know that the system "sucks".

That is exactly so.

You can say that with your condescending tone, but the fact of the matter is, it sucks. No, I don't know how to improve it, but like I said, it's not my job.

Lets put it this way. I'm a software engineer. If I write a program that doesn't work, do you really care WHY it doesn't work? Do you care WHY your system crashes every time you run my software? I could tell you that these subroutines clash with your hardware configuration which in turn causes a fatal assertion failure, but do you honestly give a crap?

I daresay you wouldn't.

And I would not sneer and say, "Why don't YOU write a better program smartass."

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
As someone who has some experience with these systems, I know that it's not as bad as you portray.

No, it's exactly as bad as I portray.

People who shouldn't have to are made to wait too long unecessarilly. And I'm not talking about congestion during rush hour. I'm talking about sitting at a g/d redlight like a friggin simpleton when noone is coming.

What kind of #### is that?

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
Yes, an overpass/interchange/limited access system would obviously improve traffic. At at least a 10x project cost increase for right-of-way acquistion alone, we'd still be driving on a two-laner while waiting for funding. Assuming, of course, you could make it throught the lawsuits from the merchants along the existing road. I'll take the the current widening project over a future pie-in-the-sky anyday.

What I heard is "Blah-blah-blah. Blah-blah-blah. Your overpass idea is dumb. Blah blah blah."

 

[SurfaceTension]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would giving 301 a "freeway" style setup releive congestion? (or a

Originally posted by Toxick
And I would not sneer and say, "Why don't YOU write a better program smartass."

I'm not a computer engineer, but let me try an analogy: You have designed a server for the main business operations at a facility, but had to provide remote access for a couple dozen small satellite offices as well. With the best equipment you could buy on your budget, you're up & running while 90% complete on the new install. I work at one of the satellite offices, and each morning at around 10am my access to the server to slows down, which costs me and my (relatively) few satellite employees a few minutes each, every day.
Do I:
a) Shout from the mountaintops that Toxic's whole system sucks the big purple hairy?
b) Declare the whole system is a POS even though installation isn't even complete or fully operational?
c) Demand that you sacrifice performance at the home office and the other satellite offices to improve my access, no matter what it does to the business?
d) Wallow in my rage, while either not comprehending the full scope of the problem or failing to point out the problem that may not be obvious from the home office?
e) Give you a call & see if there's something we can do to improve my access without being a detriment to the primary business operations?

I'm not trying to be condescending, just trying to point out that in achieving the primary objective of the 235 corridor there may be local inefficiencies that are either unavoidable, will shake out when construction is complete, or needs to be called to the attention of the right people. The problem could be a simple off-peak demand timing adjustment that has been overlooked, not necessarily that the whole system "sucks the big purple hairy".

Originally posted by Toxick
What I heard is "Blah-blah-blah. Blah-blah-blah. Your overpass idea is dumb. Blah blah blah."

Try "Blah blah blah. Not feasible at this time."

Oh, and don't forget your heart medicine.

 

[Toxick]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would giving 301 a "freeway" style setup releive congestion? (

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
Do I:
a) Shout from the mountaintops that Toxic's whole system sucks the big purple hairy?
b) Declare the whole system is a POS even though installation isn't even complete or fully operational?
c) Demand that you sacrifice performance at the home office and the other satellite offices to improve my access, no matter what it does to the business?

If history is any guide, these are the three that you will do.

I'm not saying that to be snarky. I'm saying that from experience.

Everyone I've dealt with at the end-user level doesn't care why a system doesn't work. All they know is they have a job to do, and if they have to use crappy software to get it done, I'm going to hear every sob story in painful detail.

Same with me. I'm frustrated by these lights.

Unfortunately the people who can actually do something about it are not here - and even if they were, I seriously doubt they'd give a rat-turd about what I think ("Hey - I dunno what to tell ya!"), and in the end, nothing is ever going to be done about any of my complaints. So, I'm letting off steam, by shouting about it here.

If I actually thought for one second in my wildest imagination that I could candidly and sincerely talk with someone who has the wherewithal and position to do something about this, with any bleak hope at all that something - anything - would be done about it, I would not be using terms like "suck" and "hairy wang".


Just ONCE I wish my tax money would actually be used to make my life easier, instead of constantly be used to make it that much harder.


Seriously - don't take my bitching so personally.


Unless you're responsible for the traffic-light timing.

 

[darkriver4362]

My opinion is, if you did give it the facelift, it would be able to handle more traffic than it can currently, but the whole point is to keep the traffic moving. It just doesn't make sense to me, that they haven't done this before Waldorf grows more and it will be even harder to make the changes.

Sooner or later, something is going to have to be changed.

 

[Marty]

Hi there..

This is actually the first time that I post on this board, but there is no way that I can bite my tounge on this one!

Seem to me that you have all lost track of what is important! Red lights are an inconvinience I truly agree - but that is not the issue. How much is a human life worth???

We know that the current system with crossing-lights on a 55 mph highway is lunacy since drivers will (does not matter why or who is at fault) cross the highway when traffic is approaching - will run red lights etc.

As to the cost, well lets say that an overpass with on and off ramps will cost approximately 7 million dollars (not sure about the cost), then lets look at how many residents we have in St Mary's county that are tax payers, let's add a $10.00 extra road improvement tax - I am sure that the Feds have a matching traffic safety fund that can be used for such projects and let's build one safe over/under pass with on and off ramps per year if possible - if not one year - let's make it two years.

The point is that something needs to be done.

Yes! Taxes will be increased! But a $10.00 per year.. or $100.00 per year is a small amount to pay for safety. Once again, how much is a human life worth to you??? If you have not lost a close relative, girl or boy friend, Son or Daughter, Husband or Wife in a traffic accident that could have been avoided by careful and thoughtful planning then maybe it is something to complain about.. But if you have, the extra tax would be a small price to pay and I challenge anyone who will stand up and say that we rather have deadly accidents at these crossings than come together and raise the money needed to incrrease all our traffic safety.

Martin Hedgren