“Bagels and Bluster, ” Double-Decked

I thought Tyler Whitley of the Richmond Times-Dispatch came up with the description of the week this morning when he called Russ Potts’ appearance at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast meeting “bagels and bluster.”

What fascinated me was a new (at least to me) idea that Potts’ “Blue Ribbon Commission” would put on the table to address transportation: double-decking. I’ve got to admit, there’s plenty of open space available above Virginia’s highways. We’ve developed everything else; why not reach for the sky?

Russ, tell us more.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


  1. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Double decking solves one problem: obtaining rights of way in highly developed areas. But it creates another one: Higher construction costs. … To Potts, there’s only one possible solution to the congestion crisis: Building more roads.

  2. Double decking is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. He’s got to be kidding me. You can’t even keep a road open while you double deck it. How expensive is it to create a flyover highway? This would be that expensive, except over a few miles instead of just one ramp.

    That being said, I appreciate Potts’ enthusiasm for more roads. I like that there are singleminded pro-roads people out there. Now if they can just work together with the slow growth people, and we’ll get a couple new roads and some decent land planning.

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Now if they can just work together with the slow growth people, and we’ll get a couple new roads and some decent land planning.”

    That’s a nice idea, now, if you can just sell it to the slow growth folks. Maybe I’m being unfair, but these folks seem to be powered by ideology that makes them inflexible. In a sense, they are correct that incremental growth incrementally destroys the ecosphere. That is why it is so important to plan growth that we can live with, rather than techno-monstrosities that are bound to fail.

    Good planning that is inclusive of all is going to be difficult and expensive, but it cannot depend on just one groups inflexible views. The costs and benefits will have to be shared universally, whichis not presently the case.

    It does not have to be endless rows of construction line housing. It does not have to be protected, covenented, gated communities, run by homeowner association mini-governments. It also does not have to be pedestrian dependent cubicle living. We can live with people unlike us, but we may have to kill the NIMBY’s to do it.

  4. The problem is that these people yell the loudest at local hearings. What’s a good road builder to do besides slip a few bucks to a local politician?

Leave a Reply