We need to have other roads into Ashburn. Gloucester Parkway needs to be extended from Loudoun County Parkway to Nokes Blvd. Sterling Blvd can be extended West to Loudoun County Pkwy. That would help ease the strain on Waxpool. Make Waxpool 3 lanes on either side all the way to Ashburn Village Blvd.

Posted by ssaa98 (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sidewalks in Purcellville. Now that is "change we can believe in!!' "Yes we can!!"

Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey dbc007, you are so right! Instead of sending all of our tax dollars overseas to repair a country we obliterated in a unjustified war we are going to spend them fixing our own crumbling roads, collapsing bridges, and all of the other failing infrastructure that went to h*ll in a handbasket in the glow of Reaganomics!

Posted by quietobserver (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

quiteobserver, anger is not an argument (something liberals often forget). I am opposed to the confiscation of the fruits of my hard labor to pay for things like sidewalks in Purcellville. That's not to say there shouldn't be sidewalks in Purcellville...its just that that decision should be up to the people in Purcellville. At the core of Reaganomics is the belief that work is rewarded (rich people work really hard too) and that decisions are best made at the local level (in this case the Purcellville town council). At the core of Obamanomics is the belief that the financial rewards of work (your salary and profits) are for the benefit of the federal government, who then will make a decision on how best to spend that money. If you think the federal government can spend your money better than your local government (where you are much more likely to have a real say) than you should continue to support Democrats.

Also, the boo-hooing about "crumbling roads, collapsing bridges and failing infrastructure" is bunk. No more roads or bridges are in disrepair now than would be under any normal cycle of wear and tear. But if making roads, bridges and infrastructure pristine is your objective, than I'm sure you'd join me in supporting large privatization efforts that would align demands of "customers" (i.e. you, the user of the road) with the owner who is motivated to have as many drivers on that road as possible.

Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dbc007- Surely you jest. Using the Greedway as a model?! The customer is not importnat to them they are on record saying:

"They will come around when they realize the value of their time." when they raised the rate last time!

Posted by bschweiker (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem with the Greenway is there is no competition so the owners have little incentive to improve things. Imagine if you privatized Rt 7 and 50 (competing East/West transit options). Not sure if you are distinguishing the Greenway from the Toll Road but the Toll Road issue is that they don't allow peak hour/flexible pricing (because there is no incentive, because there is no competition). I've been on the Greenway in rush hour and except for the toll booths, I drive at or slightly above the speed limit. I would say that works (for me anyway because I'm willing to pay the $5 or $6 to get to where I am going). If enough people can't afford the toll than ridership will go down and the company will either reduce tolls, sell to someone who can make it work better, or go out of business. The statement by the Greenway's owner you cite is spot on...If you are one of the people who are frustrated at the rate increase, but still use the road, you are validating the company's point. If you are fed up and are not using the road than apparently there are not enough others like you that force the company to reduce its rates. Now, I suppose the position can be taken that roads are a "right" and that government should only build, maintain and operate them. If you want to rely on antidotes to make your argument that government is better I'd refer you to Rt. 50, 7, 66, 495, 395, 123....

Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Privitization of PUBLIC ROADWAYS is a sham! The supposed efficiencies of the free market never make it into something that is basically a monopoly. Furthermore, while there is certainly some waste and inefficiency in government projects it is more than overtaken by the portion of proceeds that go to PROFIT for a few shareholders and not reinvested into the roadways.

I hope we are starting to learn that certain aspects of life in a stable and civil society are simple NOT better handled via a profit model. Basic infrastructure is one of them.

Posted by AfghanVet (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So what if the county tax payers do not want to spend anymore money on Waxpool? How do we stop the plan? Good day, ph

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AfghanVet - your premise is correct: monopolies don't work, but why, if you privatize roads would it be a monopoly? You would simply sell the roads to several operators who then compete. I guess if you sold the roads to just one company than you would have the problems you suggest. The county/state would continue to own the surface streets in neighborhoods but major transit points would be open to bid to numerous companies. As for the "few shareholder" comments, we are free to purchase shares in publicly traded companies. The government should monopolize national defense, law enforcement, the courts and not much else. I'm curious about your comment about "starting to learn..about stable and civil society." Sounds scary to think that individuals, because of a temporary blip in an otherwise 200+ year history of successful market capitalism, seem willing to creep towards more government control.

Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dbc007 - I have been avoiding the Greenway for years and take Waxpool instead. So do most others who live near Greenway exits because nobody wants to pay $4 to go a few miles. It's the main reason Waxpool is so congested. Has the Greenway lowered its rates as a result? No. It's a monopoly and should have been built by the Commonwealth with part of the high taxes we pay. I consider the toll a tax. If there was an alternative toll road running parallel to it, then maybe there would be some competition, but that's not going to happen. Roads are a public responsibility.

Posted by Loudountag (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loudountag: Give me a break. If the Greenway hadn't been built by private investors there would be no road. Virginia DOT would still be in a strategic planning phase.

Posted by JSolGen47 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Waxpool at its intersection with 28 is a disaster. Whatever planner approved the Wegmans/Target/Car Dealership/Resturaunts area and then though an intersection with one right turn lane would cut it, needs to have their professional license revoked.

Posted by BurtReynolds (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loudoun Tag: The toll is a "tax." Its a "users tax" placed on those who use the road (like a liquor tax or cigarette tax). If no-one you know wants to pay $4 that means those people value their $4 more than their time. You raise a key question: should those who don't use the road pay for it through income taxes? Some would say yes, I would say "not if we can find another way. If, like you say, "no-one" uses the road than the company operating it wouldn't be making a profit (or at least a bearable loss). I know people think that the operating company will continue to raise tolls in order to turn a profit. That may be true but that cannot go on forever. At some point there is an inflection where the toll is too much even for those who place a dollar value on their time....this is called a "market." Question for you: If Waxpool was run by a private company who had an incentive to listen to their customers (you and your friends) do you think it would flow better than a road run by VDOT?

Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)