Madison-Milwaukee High Speed Rail

[RobertR]

This plan wreaks of the "Monorail" episode of the Simpsons. We should trust civil engineers? You mean like the civil engineers who were involved in the deep tunnel project? If a light rail system is so cost effective long term, wouldn't a private railroad want to build it? I don't understand why we would want to go backwards and invest in old technology.

The Deep Tunnel project does precisely what it was designed to do. It's the politicians who oversold what it would accomplish.There never was a civil engineer who claimed that it would eliminate all overflows for every quantitity of rainfall. The design was that it would reduce overflows from nearly every time it rained, about 60 times a year, down to about 6. It accomplished precisely that, but the politicians claimed that it would reduce overflows to zero, so therefore the system "failed" in the minds of the public. Which is precisely why you shouldn't let politicians talk about engineering. They'll claim it some wonder fix or that it's completely useless when the truth almost always is somewhere in the middle. The number of true civil engineering failures, such as the Minnesota bridge collapse, are extremely rare in this country. Most of the "failures" are failures of perception.

 

It's also relevant to point out that nobody ever talks about the cost of separating the combined sewers. Which would involve tearing up every street, redoing every connection to every building, and rebuilding every sewer in the combined sewer area. Anybody want to guess the cost and amount of disruption that would cause? Or the complexity of doing that in the middle of a fully formed city with a complex network of existing underground utilities? Or how long it would take? In terms of concepts and actual constructability, the Deep Tunnel is remarkably simple, fast to build, and straightforward and caused very little disruption to the population. Which isn't to say that it's a perfect project or one without flaws, the downtown section should have been lined to prevent leaks, but there's a very good case that it was and is the best practical approach to the problem.

 

BTW, the high speed rail project is not a light rail system. This is Amtrak. It's the Chicago - Milwaukee Hiawatha line extended all the way to Madison. A train will start in Chicago and go all the way to Madison and vice versa. No train changing, no delays besides loading and unloading, one train ride. This is part of the Chicago commuter rail system, which it seems really hasn't sunk in.

 

Also, I don't see private firms building roads on their own either. Or airports. Or harbors. Things where central planning prevents things like redundancy or areas getting bypassed.

 

Robert

[Bucky370]

BTW, the high speed rail project is not a light rail system. This is Amtrak. It's the Chicago - Milwaukee Hiawatha line extended all the way to Madison. A train will start in Chicago and go all the way to Madison and vice versa. No train changing, no delays besides loading and unloading, one train ride. This is part of the Chicago commuter rail system, which it seems really hasn't sunk in.

 

Yes, I do realize this, and that is part of the problem I have with it. The Hiawatha runs at a deficit.

 

Also, I don't see private firms building roads on their own either. Or airports. Or harbors. Things where central planning prevents things like redundancy or areas getting bypassed.

 

Great Point, it's not possible for the private sector to take on a project of milliions and trillions of miles of roads. But some train routes that may only be 90 or 300 miles is another story. Amtrak is technically a private firm subsidized by the federal government. They wouldn't exist if they weren't given a helping hand financially.

[RobertR]

BTW, the high speed rail project is not a light rail system. This is Amtrak. It's the Chicago - Milwaukee Hiawatha line extended all the way to Madison. A train will start in Chicago and go all the way to Madison and vice versa. No train changing, no delays besides loading and unloading, one train ride. This is part of the Chicago commuter rail system, which it seems really hasn't sunk in.

 

Yes, I do realize this, and that is part of the problem I have with it. The Hiawatha runs at a deficit.

Hiawatha is also the most successful line in the midwest. And the 9th busiest in the nation. If you're going to work on expanding service in the Midwest, it's the line to work off of. I still think that the fact that it's a direct connection to Chicago is largely being overlooked as a source of passengers and a destination.

 

Robert

 

 

[thebruce44]

You should have moved to Waukesha than. It was your choice to live in Grafton.

 

It actually wasn't my choice, but thats besides the point. I was offering that information in terms of the traffic situation during nightly rush hour now and how much worse it will be 20 years from now.

 

And the price listed for the train ticket is a one way ticket which is not mentioned. They mention the cost of a round trip ticket for the bus and a one way ticket for the train. You don't think that is misleading?

 

Not at all. It is pretty clearly stated. If you read that and think the train is going to be cheaper than a bus thats your own fault with how well it is spelled out. Anyway, thats relatively besides the point. Did you just read the narrative of the report or the actual report itself?

 

Again this is you just flat out ignoring what we are saying. Nobody is saying the engineers are wrong (except rider estimates) or that they don't know what they are doing.

 

You have claimed that the ridership estimates are wrong and that this will cost tax payers more than it will save them each year. That right there is disagreeing with 2 of the 3 most important figures of the report that the engineers and planners put together (the third being the total cost of construction which many have disagreed with over the course of this thread).

 

You have continually said the report is wrong and now all of a sudden are saying you didn't? If you want people to take your opinion seriously this seems like an odd way to do it. State what about the report you disagree with in a logical, mathematical way instead of your emotional opinion and then back it up. Otherwise you are just going to get frustrated responses.

[homer]

The Hiawatha runs at a deficit.

What is I-94's profit margin?

 

I say that in jest because I do think highways and roads benefit the economy. BUT...that was not until a HUGE, MASSIVE influx of cash created the interstate highway system back in the 50's and 60's. If Chicago to Milwaukee track were upgraded and the trains could go 110 the whole way, I bet that route would be in the black.

[thebruce44]

The Hiawatha runs at a deficit.

What is I-94's profit margin?

And that is the second point that I said above that the detractors seem to conveniently dismiss. The report says this will save money overall through estimated models and formulas based off of scientific research and historic data, the detractors say it wont because they know more than the people who did the report.

[Bucky370]

What is I-94's profit margin?

And that is the second point that I said above that the detractors seem to conveniently dismiss. The report says this will save money overall through estimated models and formulas based off of scientific research and historic data, the detractors say it wont because they know more than the people who did the report.

 

Our roads and freeways have always been paid for by our taxes. Almost if not the entire population uses roads. (assuming our gov't doesn't take the monies set aside for the transportation fund for general fund purposes, the transportation fund wouldn't be broke) The rail system from day 1 were of private investments. A very small portion of the population in wisconsin would every use mass transit. What % travel to madision more than 10 times a year...I'd say way under 50%. 99 to 100% of us all use the roads.

[RobertR]

I'm just going to stop and sum up what I like and don't like about the plan.

 

Likes

 

1. The general idea of upgrading existing track to modern standards is a good one. The track, bridges, box culverts, signalling, etc. identified in the report are out of date with modern standards. These rails are already used and will need the upgrade soon anyways. This is more akin to rebuilding the Marquette/Zoo interchange than adding a lane that might not be necessary. You're going to replace these bridges and box culverts before they collapse anyways.

 

2. The basic design included in the service plan and preliminary engineering plan appears sound. They've identified the work that needs to be done and done plenty of preliminary design work. And identified what else needs to be done. The route is identified in detail and shown very well in plan and profile. I can't comment on the rail traffic modeling, but I've little reason to doubt it. There doesn't appear to be too many unknowns.

 

3. Expanding one of the more successful lines seems like a sound strategy to me. The strategy of using Chicago as an anchor station makes a ton of sense. I think ignoring that it's a Chicago to Madison train, via Milwaukee, is really doing the plan a disservice. Milwaukee is a midpoint in the plan, not an endpoint.

 

4. Madison and the suburbs to Milwaukee, GMA, and Chicago seem like good destinations in one direction. And, GMA, Milwaukee, and Madison seem like good destinations in the other direction.

 

5. There's very little reason to doubt that they can build the project within budget. There's a lot built into the budget for inflation and contingency. They've been building railroads since the 1800s.

 

6. From a strategic point of view, adding a rail connection to the second most populous city in Wisconsin, home of the Capitol and UW, makes a ton of sense. After Milwaukee, it's the next most logical destination in the whole state. And it's in a sweet spot where you can make the case that it's better to take the train to Chicago, and vice versa, than to drive or fly from time and cost.

 

7. They go into good detail into the incidental benefits they think the plan will accrue and their reasoning.

 

8. It will add a significant amount of jobs during a recession. And the project can be built quickly so that the taxpayer can begin to take advantage of it soon. There should be little disruption in the meantime.

 

Dislikes

 

1. The ridership estimates are given in very little detail in the report. I want to see more. How many do they expect from Madison to Chicago a week? Madison to GMA? Madison to Milwaukee? And vice versa. Same for the other stops. And what's the fee from getting from Brookfield to GMA? Is it competitive with parking costs? I've broken it down and they really don't need much ridership per additional station to meet their goals, but that still doesn't mean that every station is necessary.

 

2. There are ways to save money on this project that haven't been explored yet. Performing some rock corings for instance.

 

3. It's better to be too conservative than to underestimate costs, but fat in budgets tends to get eaten up. Or to not encourage innovative cost engineering.

 

4. Fares still have a pretty big cost range. I want more specifics.

 

5. The location of the Madison station is addressed in a pretty lackluster fashion. What are the pros and cons? Costs?

 

6. $810 million is a big upfront fee. Do all the stations need to be built at once? What's the benefit to that vs. building the Madison Station and Brookfield Station in 2012, the Watertown Station in 2015, and the Oconomowoc Station in 2018, for instance? Or any combination?

 

7. The engineering is so conservative that I think it does the plan a disservice. Overengineering a project design isn't necessarily a good thing. That's tieing up money that could be used for other things. There's an opportunity cost to that, even if the plan itself comes in under budget.

 

8. It still won't turn a profit and the plan doesn't really lay out what the goals the line needs to reach to break even.

 

Robert

[olliegjw]

Just a few items:

 

1. The cost savings on road maintenance could be done much cheaper. According to the linked report (this is an older report - Robert or Bruce would you have a more updated report?), you would just have to remove 2-3 semis per week to negate the potential savings from people riding the trains. I'm sure that could be done for cheaper than $1 billion over the next 10 years.

 

"Cost. One legal 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars."http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-trucks.htm

 

2. How will this ease any congestion in Milwaukee or Madison? People will still have to drive into Milwaukee to get to the station, and drive from the Madison airport into the city. Some traffic can be alleviated by shuttles, but that would primarily be at the destination side.

 

3. In regards to the 30% increase in popution, there will also be a great increase in technology. Many more people will be able to work from home, or alter their travel times to work by being able to do some things at home. There will also be increased technology as far as vehicle mileage efficiency, and road construction, to make them last longer.

[RobertR]

1. Yeah, I agree that trucks do a lot more damage than cars. That said, there aren't a lot of practical options for getting trucks off the road. Presumably not air or water. Now, my understanding is that you can manage air pressure in tires to limit the damage from trucks, so that's something to consider for the next generation of trucks.

 

Good news is that rail is one viable option for hauling freight. And the upgrades to the line should make moving freight between Milwaukee and Madison more viable as well. Freight is included in the plan. Really, there are three prongs; Hiawatha extended to Madison, freight, and the Empire Builder. The first one gets all the attention, the effect on the third is probably minimal, but the middle isn't insignificant.

 

2. People don't necessarily have to drive into Milwaukee to get to the station. There are stations to the south like Sturtevant and stations to the west like Brookfield, Oconomowoc, and Watertown. I can see it being very attractive to catch the train in Brookfield and take it to the airport bypassing three interchanges on the way and not paying for parking. Now, to the north that's an issue, although a Green Bay link is in the planning stages.

 

3. I agree that it's tough to forecast demand 30 years out. At the same token, a transportation option that allows one to work electronically and travel makes a lot of sense too. There's a give and take here.

 

Robert

[thebruce44]

The cost savings on road maintenance could be done much cheaper. According to the linked report (this is an older report - Robert or Bruce would you have a more updated report?), you would just have to remove 2-3 semis per week to negate the potential savings from people riding the trains. I'm sure that could be done for cheaper than $1 billion over the next 10 years.

 

That 9,600 figure sounds about right to me even to this day (I thought it was 10,000 cars = 1 truck off the top of my head). Anyway, it seems to me the best way to remove 2-3 semis per week from Madison to Milwaukee would be to upgrade the existing rail line, no? I believe the report mentioned increased freight as a fringe benefit of this project, so the potential maintenance savings to the interstate could greatly exceed their estimates.

 

How will this ease any congestion in Milwaukee or Madison? People will still have to drive into Milwaukee to get to the station, and drive from the Madison airport into the city. Some traffic can be alleviated by shuttles, but that would primarily be at the destination side.

 

Robert is right on with the MKE stop. Madison I am not too sure. That is a good question and one the report doesn't adress very well. Robert has brought up numerous concerns about that. I imagine they are planning something in terms of inter-modal transportation (which many will probably disagree with at this point but it is going to become more popular in the near future). They could easily have a second report just on what they are planning to do with the Madison area of this project.

 

In regards to the 30% increase in popution, there will also be a great increase in technology. Many more people will be able to work from home, or alter their travel times to work by being able to do some things at home. There will also be increased technology as far as vehicle mileage efficiency, and road construction, to make them last longer.

 

While true that technology will make it possible for more people to work from home, it seems impossible at this point to predict anything but a rise in vehicular traffic over the next 20 years. I have no doubt vehicle mileage will become more efficient, but so will these train engines. In terms of roadway construction, Wisconsin just plain sucks to build roads in. It would take some major breakthroughs to really help roadway construction. That being said, we have come a long way in the last 20 years, so I am sure some advancements will take place.

 

Anyway, you raise some really good points here that hopefully will be addressed as the funding comes through and the engineering becomes more precise.

[paul253]

This establishes service from Chicago to Madison. That is a

major piece of the puzzle that everyone seems to overlook. I'm starting

to think it's on purpose.

 

Homer I don't think people are overlooking this. The reason we are focusing on the Milwaukee-Madison part is because that's the only part that isn't available to passenger rail yet. It's not a direct Madison to Chicago link and therefore the travel time would be much longer because Milwaukee isn't exactly on the way.

[bjkrautk]

Not going to comment on the specifics of the plan (since I'm too lazy to actually read through the thing, despite it being in a browser window on my home laptop for the past few days), but I did see an interesting story while reading the paper during lunch today, that I thought I would contribute.

 

Mitchell International: Chicago's Third Airport (USA Today)

 

It could also raise the profile of Milwaukee as an alternative airport for greater Chicago, much as Southwest has done for Baltimore to greater Washington, D.C., or Providence to greater Boston, says Kit Mueller, a 36-year-old technology consultant from Chicago.

Mueller, who says he travels up to 30 times a year for a combination of both work and pleasure, is a convert to Milwaukee.

Unlike the northern Illinois residents most Milwaukee airlines seek, Mueller actually lives in The Loop in central Chicago — about 90 miles from Mitchell airport. Still, he says, he prefers Mitchell over O'Hare, saying the ride to Milwaukee on Amtrak's Hiawatha line doesn't take him any longer than Chicago's Blue Line "El" train to O'Hare.

"I've been somewhat the evangelist of late," Mueller says. "Whenever we're talking travel, I'm like, 'Always check Milwaukee,' " he says, though he adds Chicago's downtown Midway is still his airport of choice.

Mueller says some people think he's crazy "at first" when he tells them he prefers Milwaukee. "But two people have actually come with me" to Mitchell, he says, claiming they warmed to the idea after giving it a chance.

(Bold text highlighted by me, for obvious reasons.)

I have a lot of concerns about whether this rail upgrade will create a long-term cost savings for State/Federal taxpayers (the only measure that matters to me, as a Wisconsin taxpayer), but the possibility of speeding up the trip from the northern Chicago suburbs to Mitchell Airport seems like something that can work in conjunction with private industry.

 

...plus, it's all inter-modal-ly....which you lefties clearly love.

[homer]

saying the ride to Milwaukee on Amtrak's Hiawatha line doesn't take him any longer than Chicago's Blue Line "El" train to O'Hare.

Uh, wha? It takes like 45 min to ride the Blue Line to OHare from downtown. Driving time - yeah, I could see it for sure but not via the El.

 

Homer I don't think people are overlooking this. The reason we are focusing on the Milwaukee-Madison part is because that's the only part that isn't available to passenger rail yet. It's not a direct Madison to Chicago link and therefore the travel time would be much longer because Milwaukee isn't exactly on the way.

Chicago to Madison isn't available to rail either. Have you researched the report to find out what the travel time for Chicago to Madison would be?

[paul253]

Chicago to Madison isn't available to rail either. Have you researched

the report to find out what the travel time for Chicago to Madison

would be?

 

I did not see in the report how long the trip from Chicago to Madison would take though admittedly I didn't look excessively hard. The Madison to Milwaukee route is 1 hour and 9 minutes, and I imagine the Milwaukee to Chicago route would take roughly the same, so I don't know about 2 1/2 hours? I don't know how that compares to driving from Chicago to Madison because I've never done it. How long does it take about to drive, do you know?

[TooLiveBrew]

That's about the same, probably a tick faster (esp. if there's heavier traffic in Chicago)

[RobertR]

This establishes service from Chicago to Madison. That is a major piece of the puzzle that everyone seems to overlook. I'm starting to think it's on purpose.

 

Homer I don't think people are overlooking this. The reason we are focusing on the Milwaukee-Madison part is because that's the only part that isn't available to passenger rail yet. It's not a direct Madison to Chicago link and therefore the travel time would be much longer because Milwaukee isn't exactly on the way.

 

I don't know if you've looked at a map lately, but there's no direct interstate link between Madison and Chicago. You can take I-90 via Rockford to Chicago or I-94 via Milwaukee to Chicago. Or you can wind your way over county and state highways. As far as I can tell, there's no significant difference in distance. They're planning, page 81 of the appendices, on right around 3 hours for the trip from Madison to Chicago through 2015 and around 2:45 after that. During rush hour.

 

Edit: FWIW, I pulled up one of those internet map services and came up with a current drive time between downtown Madison and downtown Chicago of 3 hours and 7 minutes.

 

Robert

[RobertR]

Not going to comment on the specifics of the plan (since I'm too lazy to actually read through the thing, despite it being in a browser window on my home laptop for the past few days), but I did see an interesting story while reading the paper during lunch today, that I thought I would contribute.

 

Mitchell International: Chicago's Third Airport (USA Today)

 

It could also raise the profile of Milwaukee as an alternative airport for greater Chicago, much as Southwest has done for Baltimore to greater Washington, D.C., or Providence to greater Boston, says Kit Mueller, a 36-year-old technology consultant from Chicago.

Mueller, who says he travels up to 30 times a year for a combination of both work and pleasure, is a convert to Milwaukee.

Unlike the northern Illinois residents most Milwaukee airlines seek, Mueller actually lives in The Loop in central Chicago — about 90 miles from Mitchell airport. Still, he says, he prefers Mitchell over O'Hare, saying the ride to Milwaukee on Amtrak's Hiawatha line doesn't take him any longer than Chicago's Blue Line "El" train to O'Hare.

"I've been somewhat the evangelist of late," Mueller says. "Whenever we're talking travel, I'm like, 'Always check Milwaukee,' " he says, though he adds Chicago's downtown Midway is still his airport of choice.

Mueller says some people think he's crazy "at first" when he tells them he prefers Milwaukee. "But two people have actually come with me" to Mitchell, he says, claiming they warmed to the idea after giving it a chance.

(Bold text highlighted by me, for obvious reasons.)

I have a lot of concerns about whether this rail upgrade will create a long-term cost savings for State/Federal taxpayers (the only measure that matters to me, as a Wisconsin taxpayer), but the possibility of speeding up the trip from the northern Chicago suburbs to Mitchell Airport seems like something that can work in conjunction with private industry.

 

...plus, it's all inter-modal-ly....which you lefties clearly love.

While that's all well and good and part of the overall package, in fairness it should be noted that the Chicago-Milwaukee upgrades are going to cost about $12 million in the total package. I don't think there's much controversy about that part of the plan.

 

Robert

 

[homer]

Not to hijack the thread, but here's the first paragraph of that USA Today article:

 

"Mention Milwaukee, and many people would think of city icons such as bratwurst, Miller Beer or even Laverne and Shirley."

 

Come on. That is so tired and cliche.....I think I've seen that same line in about 20 different articles over the years.

[paul253]

Following Homer's line but again not to hijack this thread but you know what Milwaukee really needs is some sort of western/northern bypass basically the opposite of I894. Something that would take people who are going east on 94 and want to go north on 43 around downtown. Where exactly I have no idea.

[thebruce44]

Following Homer's line but again not to hijack this thread but you know what Milwaukee really needs is some sort of western/northern bypass basically the opposite of I894. Something that would take people who are going east on 94 and want to go north on 43 around downtown. Where exactly I have no idea.

Its actually funny you bring that up. In an urban planning class I had in school we learned about how messed up Milwaukee's freeway system is. In the '60s, SEWERPC originally planned to have a bypass around the city just like every other major city in the country. Most of it was built, but the line was never completed (41/45 was supposed to connect back to 43 somewhere around the county line). It was put up to a referendum when the system was nearing completion and people just didn't want to spend the money. Now Milwaukee is the classic example used to teach students how not to plan a city.

 

Sounds kinda familiar to the rest of this thread.

[Godspeed]

Paul: http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/bay.html

Bruce: http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/system_map.html

[thebruce44]

Yup, thats roughly the image I remember from school...I was blacked out most of that second semester senior year but that memory remains :-).

 

Interesting quote from the first article you posted:

 

According to Richard W. Cutler's book, "Greater Milwaukee's Growing Pains, 1950-2000: An Insider's View," he states it was "politically active residents" who "persuaded legislators at state, county and local levels to pass resolutions opposing the Bay Freeway."

 

This is why I am glad they leave these decisions up to the engineers and planners more often than not these days. If you let tax payers vote on this stuff they wouldn't ever want to spend the money. Then 20 years later they would be upset it wasn't built. Its almost like the people doing this for a living actually know what they are doing.

 

p.s. Has anyone read that book? Sounds interesting. Maybe I will get it for my dad for fathers day then steal it when he is finished reading. Milwaukee's history always interests me since its population has actually declined while most other cities have grown.

[Godspeed]

This is why I am glad they leave these decisions up to the engineers and planners more often than not these days. If you let tax payers vote on this stuff they wouldn't ever want to spend the money. Then 20 years later they would be upset it wasn't built. Its almost like the people doing this for a living actually know what they are doing.

I can agree to this to a point, but opposition against the destruction of the city for the convenience of suburban commuters is perfectly valid in my opinion. Eminent domain can get kind of personal.

For the sake of discussion though, a northern bypass would have fit better running somewhere between Florist Ave (6000N) and Mill Rd (6400N) from the Fondy Freeway (Hwy 145) to Green Bay Rd (Hwy 57) and then southeast through Glendale until it meets up back w/ Silver Spring rather than sticking strictly with Hampton Ave (4800N). Much of that route is cleared for rail usage (not sure how much use it gets, if at all), so it's pretty visible in Google maps.

I guess I'm not all too upset a northern bypass wasn't built. One thing I'm particularly not upset they didn't build was the extension of the stadium freeway north into Ozaukee County. That thing would've been 3 or 4 blocks from my present-day house. Probably wouldn't have bought here though, so I guess it's a moot point... It ain't no burden to me to drive the 5 minutes to I-43 on Brown Deer Rd or the 8 minutes to US-45 on Good Hope Rd, but I do work from home so my exposure to traffic is always self-inflicted.

Milwaukee's history always interests me since its population has actually declined while most other cities have grown.

Milwaukee's population decline is evident in many rust belt cities, only the fallout in Milwaukee hasn't been nearly as dramatic as some. Recent census estimates for Cleveland is at 50% of its peak population. Milwaukee is at about 80% and might be seeing an increase once the 2010 numbers are released. The '08 estimates had them back over 600k after dipping to 596,000 in 2000. Milwaukee is very interesting to me too.

EDIT: This 9/25/1969 Milwaukee Journal article kind of echoes my thoughts on the opposition and the alternative:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LtwjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QSgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7312,3398900&dq=milwaukee+baw-freeway&hl=en

EDIT 2: This 12/24/1969 article confirms that they dropped the plans for displacement reasons, not spending:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KwMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PCgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3647,1718718&dq=milwaukee+baw-freeway&hl=en

[paul253]

Thanks for the read godspeed. I've always found Milwaukee's freeway system a little curious. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what the point of Hwy 41 was considering it only goes north a few miles and then turns into Lisbon. I thought of this today as I was trying to drive eastbound from my house on the west side of Milwaukee to the east side around 4:00pm. No matter what street you take (North Ave, Center, Locust, even Capitol Dr and Hampton Ave) it is just a huge pain in the butt. Traffic is out of control from 3:00pm until 6ish and its stop and go because there is a traffic light every two blocks. Then you hit those stupid angle streets which make 6 way intersections instead of the usual 4 way. I wish there was a freeway that ran from 45 to 43 directly along Silver Spring Dr. I think the use would be well worth the cost. Silver Spring is already kind of set up like a freeway in that it goes under a few other streets.