Maryland State Senator Roy P. Dyson is leading a Commission to Study Southern Maryland Transportation intending to create a “comprehensive study that will recommend how we can better get around our congested roadways so that we don’t spend so much time in traffic.” Calvert County is represented by Commissioner Linda Kelley.

This letter suggests a set of Goals and Principles for elected officials to consider for providing the State Highway Administration (SHA) a specific set of guidelines to implement. These suggestions will improve traffic flow and significantly reduce congestion if applied throughout Calvert County. Other traffic flow improvements will occur with an overpass (SHA planned, but not yet funded) constructed at Ward Road and Rt. 4 as well as an improved egress/regress method (no SHA plans yet) other than the currently employed traffic lights at Town Center Boulevard/Dunkirk Park and Rt 4. The presence of the current set of traffic lights in Dunkirk Town Center contributes the most to current congestion than anything else.

Goals

      Minimize cost – much less than currently projected for planned (yet not funded) such as 6 lane highways and overpasses

      Improve the Traffic Flow throughout Southern Maryland, Calvert County and the Dunkirk area specifically

      Provide a “model” for future transportation studies across the state

      Reduce commuter stress during morning or evening rush hour traffic caused by the gridlock

      Decrease concerns about safety and incidents of traffic accidents

      Reduce traffic congestion

Principles

1. No Cross-over intersections permitted on Route 2, Route 4, and Route 2/4
   
2. Minimize or eliminate Left Turns
   
3. Use existing Road Shoulders (both left and right shoulders) for use when/as necessary to serve as Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes
   
4. Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes should not co-exist on the same spot of land as this is a place awaiting for an accident to occur
   
5. No 6 lane roads. Existing 2 lanes North/South for Route 4 should remain rejecting the current State Highway Administration (SHA) plans for Route 4 having 3 lanes North/South from the Washington Beltway to Prince Frederick
   
6. Replace existing traffic hazardous Cross-over intersections with more creative Elongated U-Turns
   
7. Remove Traffic Lights unless cross-traffic is of comparable density
   
8. Emphasis is on Traffic Flow (benefiting commuters at large) vice Individual Driving Conveniences

Observations

     Population growth contributes the most to increased traffic congestion than anything. Once growth is properly controlled, other effective measures can be employed to control traffic.

     Highway and Road planners typically default to placing traffic lights at intersections. While relatively cheap, these devices impede traffic and become the second most contributors to gridlock. 

     Traffic is slowed and then becomes bogged-down when the number of available lanes is reduced regardless of how many lanes exist. Reducing from 5 lanes to 4 on the Washington Beltway bogs-down traffic. Any plan to increase Route 4 and/or Route 2/4 to 6 lanes then reduced to 4 lanes in the Prince Frederick area will create a new, yet more southern starting point for southbound traffic to bog-down.

     Traffic lights are optimum in “City” traffic where traffic in all four directions at an intersection have the same rate and capacity.

     Traffic lights are abhorrent to rural environments. Other alternatives are available to include Round-About/Traffic Circles and Elongated U-Turns.

     One intersection that appears reasonable for a Round-About/Traffic Circle is Brickhouse Road/Jewell Road and Rt. 260, however, further growth in the North and Chesapeake Beach areas could create a situation where Elongated U-Turns would be more appropriate.

     Adding additional lanes (i.e., changing Route 4 from 2 lanes both ways to 3 lanes both ways) increases the pressure to further develop land for residential and commercial use negating efforts to control growth.

     Existing land that would be used for an additional lane (a third lane for each direction on Route 4) would serve better as longer acceleration or deceleration lanes. Adding a third lane will still require use of acceleration or deceleration lanes and occupy more land.

     While many factors can cause traffic accidents such as tailgating, driver impairment/error, many (especially serious injuries) are commonly associated when one vehicle crosses the path of another. A study of causes or contributors to traffic accidents would likely demonstrate that removing the occasions to cross the path of another vehicle would lessen the incidents and severity of accidents.

     Drivers are more inclined to briefly drive in the opposite direction of their intended path instead of waiting for an opening in the traffic. The current exit south from Lyons Creek Road to the nearby U-Turn at Cedarwood Road is quite successful (and only mild complaints from some who would complain about anything anyway).

     Making Right Hand turns (where typically one does not cross traffic) are easier than Left Hand turns (where typically one crosses traffic). Note, Right Turn on Red is quite successful and recently, United Parcel Service (UPS) driver routes are planned to minimize the number of Left Hand turns due to time efficiency and safety.[1]

     When traffic lights are used for roads which do not have comparable traffic capacities, the traffic lights stop traffic that was flowing and creates wide gaps in what was the traffic flow (further retarding this flow). The traffic light also creates a group of bunched-up vehicles that stay bunched-up until later sorting out of distances among themselves.

This letter is intended to provide citizens with a “thought piece” to consider and to stimulate dialogue, debate, and input to elected officials who are entrusted to serve the needs of citizens.

Many changes are suggested and some of which may appear controversial if one takes a ‘me only’ point of view. In the end, it would appear that minor inconveniences that would result are far less than the major burden placed with alternative solutions.

Not every Road, Drive, nor Lane that accesses Route 4 necessarily requires the type of changes suggested herein. The number of houses served by Morning Glory Lane or Farmers Lane for instance appears significantly small. A cost/benefit analysis may determine no need for any change.

If these suggestions are implemented, positive changes will occur:

• Trading “current long waits” to gain access onto a main road for “future brief travels” in an opposite from intended direction
• Reducing groups of bunched-up vehicles “currently retarding ready access” to vehicles that have more distance between them “providing a future with ready access”

Having driven many overseas and domestic roads since 1969, compiling typically driving 34,000 miles/year these insights into commonly occurring traffic scenarios and suggested several creative solutions are offered. Comments are welcomed and may be submitted directly to the author at VOCALCalvert@aol.com.

Evan Slaughenhoupt

Dunkirk