@Americans' preferences are inconsistent

I actually think these preferences are consistent they just aren't realistic. What would be interesting is if there was a study of the trade off people are willing to make between house size and perceived privacy versus shorter commuting times walkable access to amenities. Specifically, sq ft versus commute in minutes etc.

by Nicoli on Apr 20, 2011 9:47 am • link • report

That shouldn't really be a surprise, there are plenty of other polls showing that, in the abstract, Americans favor lower taxes and increased services all at the same time.

If having your cake and eating it, too were a realistic option, who wouldn't express a preference for that?

I agree with Nicoli - putting the questions in terms of trade-offs would provide some more insight.

by Alex B. on Apr 20, 2011 9:53 am • link • report

@Nicoli: I bet fuel prices would tip the scales on that hypothetical question. The suburbs and exurbs are only popular because fuel prices have historically be so cheap, and still are, relatively speaking. But if you had to choose between a big house out of the way of everything with a 2-hour commute that costs $200 per week and a smaller house where you could walk to work for ... well, nothing ... I bet people would usually chose the smaller, closer-in house.

by Tim on Apr 20, 2011 9:57 am • link • report

On Google Mapmaker - it would be good to see the CaBi stations mapped - but the system for characterizing an added place is still a bit too rigid.
The only way you could categorize a CaBi station would be as a "Bicycle Rental Service" - which it is - but that category is probably intended for bike rental shops and might end up causing confusion down the line.

I mapped out a few of the access trails for the CCT (the Foundry Branch Park tunnel, and a couple others up by the Dalecarlia Resevoir); hopefully those types of additions will help improve the Bicycling directions in the future.

by Bilsko on Apr 20, 2011 10:18 am • link • report

That poll is a mix of many locations, types of households, and incomes.

What concerns me is what type housing DC and close-in residents want and what they will trade off. A big problem here is that people want big square footage. Or at least the developers seem to sense that. The 500 sq. ft. typical European urban home is hard to get built in DC. Worse the weird market here supports renovated single family townhouses of 3000 sq. ft. selling for about the same as 1000 sq. ft. condos in buildings next door. Zoning plays a part but the residential center city housing stock isn't nearly built out to zoning yet.

With more equal square foot costs I think more people would choose smaller.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 20, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

In the realtors survey, I really think that good schools are the missing link. There are several neighborhoods in DC with 'larger' houses which aren't going to truly gentrify because of the educational options for children.

It's not just having your cake and eating it too or Americans being less smart than Europeans. When kids come into the equation, the equation changes.

by mch on Apr 20, 2011 11:08 am • link • report

@mch,

In the realtors survey, I really think that good schools are the missing link. There are several neighborhoods in DC with 'larger' houses which aren't going to truly gentrify because of the educational options for children.

I tend to disagree. For example, there *are* middle- to upper middle class families with children living in Columbia Heights, I know a few. And the school options there are pretty poor. So they send their kids to charter schools...or private.

When more and more schools (DCPS and charter) improve along with the neighborhoods, the equation changes. Certainly the renaissance of Capitol Hill DCPS schools have changed the equation there.

Parents of young children who can't find educational options will likely leave. But to the extent that viable options are increasing, parents will stay. Obviously the missing piece of the puzzle is middle school, but few of the parents of 4-5 year olds are moving out of the city because the middle school options stink.

by oboe on Apr 20, 2011 11:51 am • link • report

Here's a thought about funding the Dulles underground station: Start tolling the airport access road! We want to encourage people to take the train to the airport, a $5 toll on the access road would help. Right now, it's free to go all the way to the airport, while those on the main lanes have to play out the nose. Why not toll everyone? Or exclude HOVs and buses?

Anyone know the use rate of the airport access road? What sort of annual revenue would this generate?

by MDE on Apr 20, 2011 11:52 am • link • report

MDE, you are suggesting that the wrong people pay for the underground station at Dulles. It is not the people driving or riding taxis or buses to Dulles that are going to be using an underground rail station. It is the rail passengers. Simple economics suggest that those who use the facility should pay the costs of building and operating the station. The fares to and from the Airport station should be surcharged, just as parking rates recover the costs for the parking ramps and the maintenance and upgrades for surface lots.

by tmtfairfax on Apr 20, 2011 12:02 pm • link • report

The Outer Beltway is an inevitability. Buy in now.

by Redline SOS on Apr 20, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report

@tmtfairfax/MDE

Yeah, it seems as though the only people NOT helping to pay are the users of the airport, the specific beneficiaries of this particular metro station.

Airports all over the world add ticket surcharges to pay for airport specific improvements. It isn't an uncommon thing. I don't know why the MWAA can't simply add in a few extra bucks per ticket in/out of dulles to pay for this.

by freely on Apr 20, 2011 12:48 pm • link • report

Simple economics suggest that those who use the facility should pay the costs of building and operating the station.

I don't think that has anything to do with economics. I think it has to do with your sense of fairness. I also doubt that parking fees cover the full cost of parking, but I could be wrong. I'm skeptical.

Drivers don't pay the costs of roads, is that in contrast to your simple economics? There are thousands of cases where the users of a service or facility don't pay to use them.

by David C on Apr 20, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report

The Outer Beltway is an inevitability. Buy in now.

I already have: I bought a house in NE DC. Heh.

by oboe on Apr 20, 2011 1:30 pm • link • report

The airport access road doesn't have much congestion, and has already been paid for, so why should its users cross-subsidize rail users?

by ah on Apr 20, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report

The prospect of a metro accessible campus is an exciting one. Tysons is dominated by a lot of knowledge fields (particularly tech) and for those fields to survive they need access to the latest research and training. Georgetown is particularly limited in its growth prospects due to neighbors. They would be another university that should consider a substantial satellite campus.

All of this reminds me of NYC's work to get an applied science campus in the city. All of the schools interested in that, should be made aware of the Tysons opportunity. Increasing the presence of universities in the DC area should be a top priority! (as discussed in Edward Glaeser's new book)

by MW on Apr 20, 2011 2:51 pm • link • report

One pays $17 a day to park in Dulles' long-term garages and $10 per day for the Economy lot. The charges for hourly and valet parking are even higher. I cannot imagine that such rates don't cover all of the Airport's incremental costs and contributions to capital recovery and overhead.

DTR drivers pay the costs for operating and maintaining the Toll Road, capital recovery and overhead, plus the lion's share of the costs to build the Silver Line, for which they aren't benefiting, because the added growth at Tysons and Reston will more than make up for the cars taken off the DTR by Dulles Rail.

In the view of the Fairfax and Loudoun County boards of supervisors and VDOT, fairness dictates that MWAA either cancel the underground station or pay for it instead of dumping more costs on the DTR drivers. As for MWAA's paying for the additional $3 million, those travelers and others who take rail to the Airport and use the underground station are the best candidates to pay the added costs. How does someone who drives and pays parking, takes a bus or a cab and doesn't use the underground station paying for that station become fair?

by tmtfairfax on Apr 20, 2011 3:51 pm • link • report

It's not about fairness, it's about using price signals to encourage desirable behavior and discourage undesirable behavior.

tmtfairfax, are you also opposed to extra taxes on junk foods that help subsidize the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables at inner city corner stores? It's the same idea.

by MDE on Apr 20, 2011 4:04 pm • link • report

tmfairfax, it is expensive to park. That doesn't mean it covers all the costs of the land, parking, staff, shuttles, roads, ramps etc...

Here's another way to think about fairness. If I offer to sell you something - say the right to use a road - and you agree to the price, that's fair. You could choose not to, but you're agreeing to the deal. That's how Hank Reardon would see it. So if the price to use the access road is an unfair one, then people will choose not to use it. But if people pay the price, then it's fair.

But to push on MDE's idea, how many people use the access road and don't pay to park? I know some people "use it" to go to a PO Box so as to use the access road daily for free, but I don't know if they pay for parking. Isn't a better solution to raise the price of parking?

by David C on Apr 20, 2011 4:17 pm • link • report

MDE When government provides services, it should try to set prices in relationship to costs and benefits. Then let people make their own decisions. The Airport Access Road is not overcrowded and there is nothing wrong with people driving to the airport if that best meets their needs. (I know the commuters on the Silver Line won't appreciate travelers with multiple bags crowding the rail cars.) Ditto for rail, bus, vans and taxis. We don't need MWAA deciding how people should get to the airport. MWAA needs to make sure people have options that meet their needs.

The problem with regulating people's choices is that we all disagree with what is socially desirable. If you can put your finger on the scale for the decision as to how to get to the airport, what stops your neighbor from wanting to decide what services a public health clinic can provide. After all we are all citizens with an equal vote. I hope MWAA continues to make many options available to travelers at both Dulles and Reagan.

And we already pay enough taxes in Virginia.

by tmtfairfax on Apr 20, 2011 4:18 pm • link • report

MWAA needs to make sure people have options that meet their needs.

You mean by building a rail option that makes sense and is convenient for the people who are going to use it?

by MLD on Apr 20, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report

Dulles Rail is not about getting people to and from the Airport. It is about giving density to landowners in Tysons and in Reston on the backs of DTR commuters. It was hijacked years ago. Good rail service to and from Dulles would be on an express track with very few stops between the Airport and downtown D.C.

Having said that, I think it's great to have a rail option at the Dulles just like at Reagan. But let those who use it pay the costs. You all seem to worry that someone who drives a car doesn't pay enough. But if subsidizing drivers is wrong, why is subsidizing rail passengers right? Again, to use David's logic, put the price of rail to and from the Airport at a level high enough to recover the standard portion of costs that rail passengers pay, plus the cost of the underground station.

To paraphrase, "So if the price to use the IAD underground station is an unfair one, then people will choose not to use it. But if people pay the price, then it's fair."

If people are driving the Airport Access Road to avoid tolls, we need better enforcement and some fines.

by tmtfairfax on Apr 20, 2011 5:00 pm • link • report

@DavidC

Dulles was built, and all the land acquired, including those fields of parking lots with the 24,000 thousand parking spots in the early 1960's.

Yes, the parking fees already have and continue to more than pay for the cost of the parking at Dulles.

And no, the best thing to do is put the cost on the DIRECT ACTUAL BENEFICIALRIES of the airport station, that being the passengers who currently fly in and out of Dulles. DTR drivers, Access road drivers, nor airport parking parkers get one direct or indirect benefit of spending an extra 350 million for that station.

I find it incredibly strange that people think the actual people using the airport should be immune to contributing to the cost, while the folks who were already paying more than their fare share on the DTR (it was already a cash cow for VDOT prior to transfer) should pay more, even though that daily traffic has zero to do with the airport.

by freely on Apr 20, 2011 5:11 pm • link • report

freely, the parking fees already have and continue to more than pay for the cost of the parking at Dulles.

That's all the proof I need. If freely says so, it must be true. I don't need to see how much it costs to maintain the facilities and run the parking operation or how much revenue it makes, or when the bonds for the parking were paid off or how. freely says it - and emphatically - so it must be gospel. Moving on.

And no, the best thing to do is put the cost on the DIRECT ACTUAL BENEFICIALRIES of the airport station, that being the passengers who currently fly in and out of Dulles.

Define "best". Best for whom? Best for achieving what goal or set of goals?

I find it incredibly strange that people think the actual people using the airport should be immune to contributing to the cost

People using the access road are using the airport. And they'll find more parking if more people use transit.

while the folks who were already paying more than their fare share on the DTR
The proposal here is not to charge users of the DTR but of the access road.

by David C on Apr 20, 2011 5:25 pm • link • report

Americans' preferences are inconsistent

These preferences aren't inconsistent at all. If I say that I like low prices, and I also like high quality goods, there's nothing inconsistent about that. It just means that when I make an actual purchase I might have to make a tradeoff between different things that I simultaneously value. People do that all the time.

by David desJardins on Apr 20, 2011 9:51 pm • link • report

"South Capitol plans disappoint"

An understatement.

We were promised a linear park to open up the SC vista, a vehicular road tunnel beneath, and a prettier and more pedestrian freindly replacement bridge.

Instead, the linear park was squashed (ultimately sparing a single building- the St. Vincent dePaul Roman Catholic Church at the ne quadrant at M Street); the tunnel nearly forgotten, and hence leaving the existing bridge with a some $117 million project to shorten it for the sake of not blocking the view of that new ill placed (blocking the SC linear park) baseball stadium, even though that bridge would be torn down in about a single decade anyway!

Notably, the national media 'pundents' that spent so much time decrying Alaska's Gravina Island Bridge project, never uttered a peep about this planning malfeasance right in the nation's Capitol City!

by Douglas Willinger on Apr 27, 2011 8:46 pm • link • report