"Alan Suderman initially gave me credit for recruiting her, but as the update says, running was her idea."

David - you know better than any that this is not the word on the street. Interesting approach to collaborating with your Councilman. I'm sure he will be more than happy to move the GGW agenda forward in Ward 2 knowing you are working behind the scenes to unseat him.

Good move!

by Mark Parsons on Sep 20, 2011 8:50 am  

" A Maryland resident wants to send DC a bill for the impact of bumpy roads on her car. Perhaps DC could send her a bill for contributing to road maintenance, since she pays no DC taxes on her DC income. (RPUS)

While I definitely see the irony in a non-DC resident thinking they should have a say in how we spend our tax dollars (... and where I have I read before that's it's okay for commuters to comment on how we spend our tax dollars?), the truth of the matter in this case is that, unlike the states, the feds pay something like 90% of our DOT budget ... and they do so specifically because our roads are meant to serve many federal purposes ... including getting their federal employees to and from work. So, yes, she's correct in this case to complain ...

by Lance on Sep 20, 2011 8:51 am  

Only in Deecee: As the DC Council is poised to hike income taxes, some councilmembers are floating (looking at you, Vincent Orange) a raise for councilmembers. Now, that's really "progressive."

by Bob on Sep 20, 2011 9:01 am  

@Lance - The 90% funding isn't blanket support. Rather, USDOT provides 90% funding for certain eligible projects (federal aid routes) that DDOT decides to undertake, and that's true for a lot of states, where much of the funding is provided federally.

I suspect Conn. Ave. qualifies for federal funding, but most of the streets in DC do not.

by ah on Sep 20, 2011 9:16 am  

Dear Vinny Orange,

We have term limits.

Sincerely,

Elections

p.s. People usually try to do a good job before asking their boss for a raise.

by DAJ on Sep 20, 2011 9:18 am  

If the increased income tax goes into effect "immediately" isn't that also retroactive? Or by "immediately" does it mean only on income earned after passage of the bill?

And while I don't have a problem not eliminating the muni-bond exception immediately, to avoid "retroactivity" (after all, it's primarily providing a subsidy to other state governments, who can pay lower interest because it is income tax free), why should it extend forever on bonds purchased before the end of this year? That could create a tax exemption for 30 years in some cases. Why not create a phase-out, which gives such bond holders time to sell and purchase alternative bonds?

by ah on Sep 20, 2011 9:21 am  

And happy I just renewed my RPP for two years!

BTW, why should a change of address request cost anything?

by ah on Sep 20, 2011 9:26 am  

Term limits...

The last time we discussed the topic, it got focused in on Marion Barry after I brought him up. The "anti" term limiters using the rationale of "well, how many Marion Barry's can their be".

Well, as we've seen thus far with Kwame Brown, Jim Graham, Vincent Gray, Harry Thomas Jr etc, that atleast for the District, term limits would be an incredibly beneficial thing.

The District seems to be fielding almost an entire team of either full on criminals, or completely inept and embarrasingly ineffective place holders whose positions would be far better used by someone else (Graham, Gray, Alexander...)

I don't know why DC's varsity squad is so overwhelmingly ridiculous, whats in the water that brings every borderline criminal to not only run for public office in the District, but continue to get elected, or if DC is an anomaly in that regard, but there isn't a doubt in my mind that the entire city wouldn't have benefited from a continuation of the term limits that were done away with.

I could be swayed by the number of terms allowed, perhaps 3... but after having lived in this town for as long as I have and being constantly reminded at the useless juveniles that run this town like we have all this year, term limits would be a godsend.

by freely on Sep 20, 2011 9:35 am  

To Lance's comment: The federal government does not provide money to DC for transportation beyond what it would provide to any state in the same situation. The money is mostly just doled out by formulas, along with a few discretionary grant programs which by and large haven't gone to DC, maybe because it's not a swing state.

by David Alpert on Sep 20, 2011 9:40 am  

Perhaps Ms. Ball would like to contribute to a congestion charge for the use of our roads? Because DC cannot tax income earned by non-residents and property taxes aren't enough, this is the next logical step... barring any involvement by Congress.

by John M on Sep 20, 2011 9:46 am  

Not having term limits for council members such as Jim Graham is a dangerous thing.

by Ron on Sep 20, 2011 9:50 am  

Lance, you cannot just make things up. The feds do not pay 90 percent of the DDOT budget. First: federal law requires a 20 percent match for any federally funded highway project. Second: most routine street construction, repair and maintenance in DC (and most other jurisdictions) is not federally funded anyway.

Jsut to be sure, I checked for 2011. DC gets around $165 million each year in federal highway funds by formula (all "states" get federal highway funds this way; it is not a special DC thing). DC matches this funding with about $41 million in locally-derived revenue. Plus, DC puts in another $35 million from locally-derived revenue for local streets. And, a good portion on the General Obligation bonds DC issues ($619 million in 2011), which are backed by locally-derived revenue, go towards street and highway projects.

So, in the end, the feds pay considerably less than 90 percent of the DDOT capital budget. And, they pay 0 percent of its operating budget.

But forget the facts. Blanket statements and hyperbole are so much easier, especially when defending an entitled suburban driver. Silly me, I forgot: only pedestrians and bicyclists are ever selfish....

by rg on Sep 20, 2011 9:54 am  

@Lance: only Interstate maintenance projects can be Federally funded up to a 90% rate. In DC, that's limited to the SE/SW Freeway, 3rd St Tunnel, 11th St Bridge, 295 south of the 11th St Bridge, and the short bit of 66 that comes in from the Roosevelt Bridge. For every other project, the max is 80%, and it's often far less than that.

by Froggie on Sep 20, 2011 9:59 am  

A Maryland resident wants to send DC a bill for the impact of bumpy roads on her car.

Dear Ms. Ball,

Hmm. No. I don't think so. Also, we'll take our sweet time fixing Connecticut Ave. DC's voting residents--of which you're not one--have got other priorities. Why not ride a bike?

Love,

DC Resident.

by oboe on Sep 20, 2011 10:09 am  

@RG; so

165 federal funding
41 DC funding match
35 other revenue:

total: 241M

Total 2011 DDOT budget: 110M

A bit confused by your numbers. DDOT own's budget numbers say:

2M local
18M dedicated taxes
80M in SPFR

by charlie on Sep 20, 2011 10:14 am  

Someone will undoubtedly know the answer: I thought b/c DC had so few highways, it received federal "highway" money for many streets that aren't actually highways, such as 7th St, North Capitol, NY Ave, etc?

by Fritz on Sep 20, 2011 10:16 am  

Don't Ask, Don't Tell ends today.

Congrats America, your home is now a bit freer, especially for those brave serving the land in the military. America's Union became a bit more perfect. Job well done.

Virginia can toll I-95 south of Fredericksburg. (Examiner)

Ah, taxation is bad, but if you raise revenue through tolls it's ok. Except if you raise those tolls to reduce congestion and building a metroline. You gotta love self-serving breaks in hard policy beliefs.

If this goes into work, then count on NC following VA's leadership, and FL soon afterwards.

It'll be a nice change. In stead of getting stuck on I-95 because there is too much traffic, we'll get stuck at the toll booths paying to wait in line.

I recently drove over the Powhite Parkway in Richmond. Lovely tolls there. 70c. Of course I have 70c in change. Idiots.

I HATE tolls.

Oh, and the MD lady is right to complain about DC's horrible roads. They're terrible. Not the right way to complain, but she's right to complain. Some roads are in such a poor state, using the word road is nearly an abuse of language.

by Jasper on Sep 20, 2011 10:26 am  

@ Fritz:streets that aren't actually highways

Dc has more highways than people realize. For instance, there are the unsigned I-695. I read somewhere that they're actually working to start putting up some signs for I-695 and readjusting the I-295 official route, which is dearly needed. But I am sure Froggie will know more than I do. Froggie?

To summarize: Federal roads in DC: I-66, I-95, I-295, I-395, I-495, I-695, US-1, US-29, US-50. That includes pretty much all the bridges across the rivers. On top of that are the NPS Parkways: GW, Clara Barton and Rock Creek.

I am not sure what the status of the Whitehurst, Suitland, and Anacostia Free- and Expressways is.

by Jasper on Sep 20, 2011 10:35 am  

@Jasper:

Oh, and the MD lady is right to complain about DC's horrible roads. They're terrible. Not the right way to complain, but she's right to complain. Some roads are in such a poor state, using the word road is nearly an abuse of language.

In the moderate amount of driving I do, I don't see that DC roads are particularly worse in general than the roads in MD or VA. The main difference is that MD and VA residents are completely car-dependent, while many DC residents don't even own cars, and those that do often take alternative methods. So it's understandable that making our roads super-pristine for commuters isn't our absolute #1 priority.

The suburbs benefit greatly from being decoupled politically from DC. Particularly in the area of social services. The downside to that you don't get a voice in DC politics.

by oboe on Sep 20, 2011 10:42 am  

Here is a map of DC roads by classification.

My understanding is all roads on the map with coloration are eligible for federal funds.

http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/About+DDOT/Maps/Functional+Classification+Map

by ah on Sep 20, 2011 10:51 am  

"So it's understandable that making our roads super-pristine for commuters isn't our absolute #1 priority."

So, making WMATA run on time is? Or Metrobus as a world leading transit solution? Because these don't seem to be working either.

DC roads are terrible. It has been a long standing tradition to underinvest in all sorts of routine upkeep -- going back to Williams and Dr. Gandhi's desire to get off the control board -- and we are paying the price now. Perhaps Oboe's point is valid that DC commuters don't care, but call a pig a pig.

by charlie on Sep 20, 2011 10:52 am  

@jasper, Virginia adding tolls to I-95 and other roads is an inevitable result of the political refusal to raise the gasoline excise tax of 17.5 cents per gallon which has been unchanged since 1986. Even with an increase in the gas tax that is proportional to either the overall inflation rate or the cost of construction projects, as cars get better gas mileage or switch to electric vehicles, the amount of gas tax revenue per mile driven drops.

The second item that will make tolling much more wide spread in the coming years is the development of automated pay technology like EZ-Pass. Put up drive through lanes for those with EZ-Pass or Smart Tags, have a couple of credit/debit card booths and charge extra, a lot extra, for the cash payment lanes with attendants. If you want to avoid back-ups at the toll plaza, get an EZ-Pass or Smart tag.

The bottom line is that the vast road and highway system we have built in the US has to be paid for if we want to maintain and improve it. Tolls as direct user fees start to take away the extensive hidden subsidies for our highway system.

by AlanF on Sep 20, 2011 10:54 am  

Charlie, I think you are looking at the DDOT operating budget. My numbers are from the capital budget.

by rg on Sep 20, 2011 10:56 am  

@ oboe:I don't see that DC roads are particularly worse in general than the roads in MD or VA. The main difference is that MD and VA residents are completely car-dependent

It does not matter if you drive down a bumpy road or bike down a bumpy road or ride the bus on a bumpy road. A bumpy road is a bumpy road and that is uncomfortable and quite frankly dangerous.

So it's understandable that making our roads super-pristine for commuters isn't our absolute #1 priority.

Yeah, then why are the side-walks in much of DC as bumpy as the roads?

Look, I don't care what the priorities are. If you build a road, you should maintain it. Or close it, when it's not needed.

The suburbs benefit greatly from being decoupled politically from DC. Particularly in the area of social services. The downside to that you don't get a voice in DC politics.

I don't get a voice in the suburbs either. I just pay taxes. Can I complain now? I am legally barred from voting for my (and your) representation in any US government (but I am still represented).

Funny thing is that I can write my representatives to whine about the state of the roads in DC, and that they might be able to do something about it :-P

by Jasper on Sep 20, 2011 10:57 am  

So, making WMATA run on time is? Or Metrobus as a world leading transit solution? Because these don't seem to be working either.

Last I checked WMATA wasn't run by DC. It was a regional entity crippled by provincial infighting. Heck, that's one reason DDOT is building out a streetcar/Circulator network: to supplement the commuter-focused Metro system.

DC roads are terrible.

Again, I drive around DC. I disagree. They're as good as many jurisdictions in the suburbs. Maybe they're not pristine, but then again, so what? DC is doing better fiscally than most of the suburbs. Perhaps it's good that we're not squandering our wealth on asphalt.

Also, I will put the quality and comprehensiveness of DC's sidewalks up against any in the country.

by oboe on Sep 20, 2011 11:06 am  

@RG; ok.

DC DDOT capitol budget: 252M

Coming from:

143M in federal highway money
37M in gas tax money
27 in local transportation fund

So, again, there a huge chunk in federal funding.

by charlie on Sep 20, 2011 11:30 am  

Because DC is such a transient community, I don't think term limits are necessary or appropriate. Outside of with the harry thomas being the possible exception, I don't believe any of the others have done much "criminal" or @ a minimum subject to term limits.

DC needs a complete review and implementation of the existing laws on the books. It seems as if the culture is such that things have long gone awry of the "rules" that many don't even know what they are.

Knowing and following the rules would have prevented kwame's naviscandal.

by HogWash on Sep 20, 2011 11:34 am  

@charlie

What's your point? Look at other state level DOTs and see what their federal funding component is like...

by Alex B. on Sep 20, 2011 11:35 am  

charlie: Yes, there's a huge chunk in federal funding, but there's also a huge chunk in federal funding in Florida, which nobody drives through to get anywhere else and very few people drive into from other states to get to federal jobs.

If DC were a state and the federal government were located in Reno, the District would still get the federal money.

by David Alpert on Sep 20, 2011 11:38 am  

Interesting article about dc teachers. The recent stats are exhibit A for the piss poor communications job the previous administration deployed.

How really sad...sad...sad..sad

by HogWash on Sep 20, 2011 11:38 am  

@ oboe:DC is doing better fiscally than most of the suburbs.

Really? How exactly did you determine that?

by Jasper on Sep 20, 2011 11:41 am  

I wish more of the DC Council races had competitive elections and I wish that either the Statehood Green party wasn't so moribund and that the Republicans weren't shackled to the insane tea-party fueled national agenda. But as much as I'd like some council members replaced, I do not want to see it happen via term limits. Unless there were some way to impose term limits on lobbyists.

by thm on Sep 20, 2011 11:43 am  

@ David Alpert: Florida, which nobody drives through to get anywhere else and very few people drive into from other states to get to federal jobs.

What? Are you saying Florida has no Federal jobs that people drive to from other states? That's ridiculous. Do you really think nobody on Eglin AFB lives in Alabama? Pensacola has plenty of Federal Jobs that people drive to from Alabama. What about the High Magnet Lab in Tallahassee? That has plenty of visiting scientists come through it.

Perhaps not on the scale that DC has, but Florida has plenty of Federal jobs close to the border of Alabama and Georgia to make it a ridiculous assumption that nobody crosses state lines to get to work. Not to mention the tourism that Federal facilities like Cape Canaveral cause.

If DC were a state and the federal government were located in Reno, the District would still get the federal money.

But Reno would have metro.

by Jasper on Sep 20, 2011 11:51 am  

@DaveAlpert (and Alex); yep, I agree with your point. DDOT funding is just like any other state in terms of federal grants.

I'm just responding to RJ's point about the level of funding. It may not be 90%, but eyeballing it it is over 50%. Why is this important? Well, as we are seeing with the TE money, far too much time and effort is spent fighting about budget categories instead of need.

NB: If the federal capital was located in Reno, DC wouldn't be a state. It would be a county in Maryland. DC exists for one purpose: to give the federal government a home. Remove that and you could retrocede it all back.

by charlie on Sep 20, 2011 12:14 pm  

@Jasper

The point is that the Federal Government does not disburse highway funds on the basis of getting Federal employees to work.

by Alex B. on Sep 20, 2011 12:15 pm  

oboe:DC is doing better fiscally than most of the suburbs.

jasper:Really? How exactly did you determine that?

While fiscal health is pretty hard to summarize without a great deal of financial analysis, the best single indicator is bond rating. On that measure, DC, Fairfax, Arlington, Loudoun, Prince William, MoCo, PG, MD, and VA all have the highest rating of AAA. That said, many of those jurisdictions are on watch for a potential downgrade.

by Falls Church on Sep 20, 2011 12:23 pm  

@ Falls Church:While fiscal health is pretty hard to summarize without a great deal of financial analysis, the best single indicator is bond rating. On that measure, DC, Fairfax, Arlington, Loudoun, Prince William, MoCo, PG, MD, and VA all have the highest rating of AAA.

Indeed indicating that all jurisdictions here are doing roughly the same. Not that DC is doing better.

by Jasper on Sep 20, 2011 12:27 pm  

I'd support banning outside income for Council members, and making that limitation not apply retroactively (e.g. not be implemented on current officials), but not Orange's proposal to have terms limits which are not applied retroactively. There's too much lobbyist influence on the Council as it is without turning it into a revolving-door institution of Council members learning the ropes. I think election reform would make it easier to dislodge members who have outserved their usefulness.

by DCster on Sep 20, 2011 12:29 pm  

I live in Va and work in DC, and frankly I would love to see a discussion of a commuter tax with ALL FUNDS from it devoted to making transportation improvements designed to ease the plight of Va and Md commuters (we could start with the Barney circle freeway proposal, but also of course metro priorities for commuters, like the seperate blue line)
I would think that would elicit at least a bit less opposition in the suburbs than a commuter tax to DC general funds. Has there ever been a serious proposal like that?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 20, 2011 12:43 pm  

I'm not against a commuter tax. But you have to assume that if DC were able to implement a commuter tax on MD and VA residents, those jurisdictions would do the same. While I'm sure the net would be in DC's favor, the haul may not be as big as everyone may assume. There are a number of DC residents who make the reverse commute to jobs in the 'burbs. Many of these reverse-commuters earn good incomes and DC is currently realizing the full benefit of income taxes on their compensation.

by Bob on Sep 20, 2011 12:50 pm  

@David "To Lance's comment: The federal government does not provide money to DC for transportation beyond what it would provide to any state in the same situation. The money is mostly just doled out by formulas, along with a few discretionary grant programs which by and large haven't gone to DC, maybe because it's not a swing state.

The District's formula allows for the feds to cover 90% of the cost while for the states it is closer to 50%. (There was an article in The Post about this issue some years back.) So, yes same methodology ... no, not same results because of the difference in coverage ratios by the feds.

by Lance on Sep 20, 2011 1:34 pm  

@Lance - So your implication is that if the Feds only paid 50% then she would be incorrect to complain about it? What's your magical % where it becomes ok to complain? 51%?

by Thaps on Sep 20, 2011 1:38 pm  

@Lance: only Interstate maintenance projects can be Federally funded up to a 90% rate. In DC, that's limited to the SE/SW Freeway, 3rd St Tunnel, 11th St Bridge, 295 south of the 11th St Bridge, and the short bit of 66 that comes in from the Roosevelt Bridge. For every other project, the max is 80%, and it's often far less than that.

From what I recall from the Post Article, in DC the main roads such as Connecticut Avenue are designated 'highways' for eligibility for these funds.

by Lance on Sep 20, 2011 1:38 pm  

I live in DC, commute by transit, and I travel by car maybe 20% of the time. So I am not some Maryland freeloader, and I am not someone who secretly pines for DC to be a suburb.

That said, the condition of Connecticut Avenue from Cleveland Park to Woodley Park is terrible. I am from Michigan, another state with terrible roads, and this is one of the worst that I have seen. The road surface is very uneven, and there are significant bumps and asphalt cutouts that are totally unsigned.

I assume it all has something to do with a construction project, but I have no clue what this project is. Can someone enlighten me?

by Phil on Sep 20, 2011 1:39 pm  

@oboe "The main difference is that MD and VA residents are completely car-dependent, while many DC residents don't even own cars, and those that do often take alternative methods."

Yes, and your favorite 'chem-free, raised without fences' food at the local farmers market just magically gets there ... No need for any roads for it to come in. Ditto for the bus drivers (from MD and elsewhere) who drive you around at (mainly) taxpayer expense.

Jeez ... folks get a clue. The idealistic, isolationist, 19th century 'let's just live a fairy tale existence in our little walkable neighborhoods where everything we really want is available' didn't really exist before, and won't exist now or in the future. Now matter how many people and bikes you try to cram into a small area ...

by Lance on Sep 20, 2011 1:45 pm  

Tell me again how bankrupting the city in order to ensure non-taxpaying suburban commuters can get in and out of the city as conveniently as possible--at the expense of residents' quality of life--will help with deliveries again?

Needless to say, I find your "produce is delivered on trucks, and trucks drive on roads, but cars also drive on roads, therefore we should pursue policies that privilege single-driver private automobiles" argument less than compelling.

My preference would be to give priority to pedestrians, then cyclists, then buses, then delivery trucks. Then waaaaayyy down the list, private automobiles. Luckily, it looks like many urban environments around the country and world are slowly starting to implement policies that do just that.

And I'd say, oh, "90%" of all DC residents agree.

by oboe on Sep 20, 2011 2:01 pm  

The idealistic, isolationist, 19th century 'let's just live a fairy tale existence in our little walkable neighborhoods where everything we really want is available' didn't really exist before, and won't exist now or in the future.

And yet, Paris, Quebec, Copenhagen, Amsterdam...all seem to exist somehow. Heh.

by oboe on Sep 20, 2011 2:08 pm  

@Phil - I'm not 100% sure about the Cleveland Park work, but the Woodley Park mess is a result of a National Park Service/DC WASA project to upgrade the sewer lines so that less raw sewage spills into Rock Creek.

So, the irony of all of this is that the mess that Ms. Ball is rightfully complaining about (at least the Woodley Park portion) has been inflicted upon DC by the Park Service (a federal entity) not by the city administration.

by Anon2 on Sep 20, 2011 2:54 pm  

@Oboe And yet, Paris, Quebec, Copenhagen, Amsterdam...all seem to exist somehow. Heh.

I saw a great French movie the other day that revolves around 'one night in Paris' where the characters all work at the supergigantic wholesale market that relocated from Les Halles down to a Paris suburb in 1969. If you could see the size of the place (it is the largest market in the world), you'd understand how not-self sufficient Paris (one of your examples) is. And why did they re-locate it? The roads in Paris weren't sufficient to handle the growing list (and volume) of products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March%C3%A9_d%27Int%C3%A9r%C3%AAt_National_de_Rungis

by Lance on Sep 20, 2011 3:12 pm  

i.e., Let's not try to romanticize what we have now in the city center. It's 1000% better than what then what we had a century ago when we didn't have a whole infrastructure provided by sprawl to support our lifestyle. We're fortunate. But not everyone can live this way because something would have to give ... either we'd have to go back to being content with what they had 100 years ago in DC (e.g., limited choice of products) or we'd have to find a way for everyone to be able to pay the increased costs we pay to enjoy or lifestyle in the city (For example, more people can afford to own their own separate house because they can pay less for land when there's more of it available ... and 'sprawl' is what makes that land more accessible and available.)

I have cousins in the Paris 'burbs. And as one younger cousin said, 'living in Paris itself is out of reach for most people of my generation.' They need options .. just like we do.

by Lance on Sep 20, 2011 3:21 pm  

'living in Paris itself is out of reach for most people of my generation.'

I am sure someone on the popular PPGPG site can calculate that when taking into account their transportation cost, this is a fallacy.

[PPGPG = Paris Plus Grand Plus Grand]

by Jasper on Sep 20, 2011 4:59 pm  

If you could see the size of the place (it is the largest market in the world), you'd understand how not-self sufficient Paris (one of your examples) is. And why did they re-locate it? The roads in Paris weren't sufficient to handle the growing list (and volume) of products.

I mean this with all due respect, but I'm not following you.

Just to restate your points: a) Paris lost out in its bid to host some mega-massive food wholesaler hub to the suburbs; b) that demonstrates that Paris is not "self-sufficient"; c) the same horrible dependency could grip DC should we pursue such myopic policies; and d) should we do so, our quality of life could fall (presumably to a Parisian level!) such that our commercial choices would be severely curtailed, no one could afford to live here any more, which would severely impact "young people" for whom we have an obligation to "provide options".

by oboe on Sep 20, 2011 5:06 pm  

I think losing the Florida Ave wholesale district to PG County in exchange for "Paris on the Potomac" is a trade-off many District voters would gladly make. And the "young people" can go gentrify Baltimore (or live in denser condos), and lobby for HSR links between there and Union Station.

One last thing:

It's 1000% better than what then what we had a century ago when we didn't have a whole infrastructure provided by sprawl to support our lifestyle.

Central Market circa 1910

by oboe on Sep 20, 2011 5:20 pm  

Oboe, the point is simply that Paris and Washington are as they are today because despite historic appearances they are just as linked in to the road-dependent world of the 21st century as their suburbs. If the anti-road group got their wish, they wouldn't get the utopia they're expecting. They'd get a city unable to benefit from the bounty of products and opportunities which only a flexible, far reaching, and economical system such as our sprawling road system can provide.

BTW, I noticed there are no tomatos in your picture. It must not have been tomato growing season in the farmland surrounding DC. And, of course, minus our modern transportation system, there were no trucks to bring them here from California ... or Mexico ... or whenever.
I also don't see any frozen or prepared food there ... or tropical mangos ... etc.

If the road hates really could go back to the 19th century, would they? I doubt it ...

by Lance on Sep 20, 2011 6:53 pm  

@oboe:

Cities have almost never been self-sufficient. Could DC grow enough food to support its residents? Absolutely not - Washington, like almost all modern cities, essentially exchanges services for other goods produced in suburban and rural areas.

As far as roads go, the appropriate way to save money on road maintenance is not by letting them fall into disrepair; that's like applying a "starve the beast" strategy to auto-based commuting. Far better than having cars, buses and trucks travel on poor-quality roads would be simply allotting space currently used by cars to pedestrians, bikes or streetcars instead.

I don't think it'd be a good idea, but is there anything legally preventing the District from putting up toll booths at the major avenues into the city?

by jakeod on Sep 20, 2011 7:12 pm  

By 1910, California fruits had started to make their appearance nationwide, moving on refrigerated trains. Interstate travel times haven't dropped today, not with high-priority freights moving at 70 mph. It still takes about three days to get produce from California.

Milk came by train from closer sources.

Bananas would have arrived in the States by ship, as they do today. I believe that some advocates of highway transportation tried to get bananas here by truck, but they all drowned.

You don't see prepared food there because you're looking at a greengrocer's stall. I don't see bread or meat either, but I'm not going to conclude that Americans were raw-foods nuts. In 1910, people would have bought prepared foods in a coffeeshop or restaurant.

What sort of food did people buy? A British journalist visiting US textile towns noted this menu, in Manchester, N.H., 1902:

   DINNER: 25 cents.

   SOUP.

   Clam Chowder.

   FISH.

   Boiled halibut and egg sauce.

   ROASTS.

   Stuffed lamb, loin of pork,

   Sirloin of beef.

   ENTREE.

   Fried hornpont.

   VEGETABLES.

   Potatoes, green corn, creamed

   macaroni.

   DESSERT.

   Apple, mince, and pumpkin pies, rice pudding.

   Tea, coffee, milk.

So yes, I'd say that in the absence of Interstate highways, Americans were clearly starving, scurvy-ridden, and paying exorbitant prices for their meager pickings.

by David R. on Sep 20, 2011 7:14 pm  

I was in Warsaw on Parking Day and ran into an event there. Really global!

by Gavin on Sep 20, 2011 7:36 pm  

As a resident of MD I am totally gob-smacked by the assertion here and elsewhere that the roads are worse in DC. My typical driving is in DC as much as it is in PG, and PG is *much much worse.* The real problems are almost all on state highways. I don't know if the Md SHA realizes that it is responsible for maintaining highways in PG inside the beltway. I think they just forgot.

by DavidDuck on Sep 20, 2011 9:16 pm  

Term limits could be helpful, if and only if the limit is pretty high. 12-20 years in office seems like a reasonable amount, depending on the legislative body...

by DavidDuck on Sep 20, 2011 9:21 pm  

Speaking as a young person, besides everyone elses arguments about self suffiency and all. I'm not interested in washington necessarily because its washington but because of its form. Moreover I don't have a problem with suburbs in and of itself if it is a form I like (i.e. walkable/bikeable/the usual). Unfortunately to get that here in the states you have to live in certain cities. If the fairfax neighborhoods I lived in during school met what I want in a neighborhood I wouldn't have wanted to move to Arlington or DC. So yes we do need to increase options for all people but I think that it needs to happen in a "smart" way.

by Canaan on Sep 20, 2011 9:59 pm  

Sure, my problem with Lance's point (if I can tease it out) is that he seems to argue that we sacrifice Washington's unique "form" (to a great extent) in order to promote the current lifestyle and forms of the suburbs. Why? Because if we don't, say, expand I-66 to eight lanes through Arlington, or turn Connecticut Ave into PG County's "Rt 4 / Penn Ave", then the self-sufficient suburbs will cut off our supply of fresh tomatoes.

Just seems off-kilter to me.

Too bad there's not an alternative freight transportation network of which DC is a major hub. Imagine if there was some way to transport fresh tomatoes in the same manner as we transport commuters to NYC or Boston! Impossible dream.

by oboe on Sep 21, 2011 10:04 am  

Yes, and your favorite 'chem-free, raised without fences' food at the local farmers market just magically gets there ... No need for any roads for it to come in.

That’s why we need suburban drivers off the roads and out of the way, so that delivery trucks full of fresh tofu and Neuhaus chocolate can make into town. With commuters and aimless suburban car drivers out of the way, the costs of fuel and driving time for our deliveries go down.

Meanwhile, those pallets bearing chewing gum and hot dogs brimming with preservatives bound for suburban superstores can be shipped without haste, from factories in China, via roads that the suburbanites clog up and pretend to pay for. Deal?

I saw a great French movie the other day.

Seems to me Parisians do all right getting their hands on fresh food. For that Rungis feel, one might visit the Florida Avenue Market. (By Metro, bike, or foot from Union Station. Or by car, alas.)

They need options .. just like we do.

Ah, the “options” of the “free” market. Let’s be honest about how suburbanites glean from those who choose (or can afford) to live in civilization. At least the cousin admits his situation is regrettably second-class. Absent a confession like that, why aren’t Americans willing to pay for the automobile-based option (including the cost of pollution, obesity, accidents, and trillion-dollar wars for cheap gasoline), as the Europeans do?

Tomatoes from California? Uh, no thanks.

by Sydney on Sep 21, 2011 11:00 am  

Tomatoes from California? Uh, no thanks.

I can't remember who it was who characterized the US agricultural system as "shipping water from the California desert to the east coast in the form of iceberg lettuce", but it rings pretty true. A miracle of modern logistics maybe, but I'm not sure all miracles are good things.

by oboe on Sep 21, 2011 11:32 am  

@Lance BTW, I noticed there are no tomatos in your picture. It must not have been tomato growing season in the farmland surrounding DC.

I grow tomoatos in a 12" pot. They are abundant and flavorful. My neighbor cans them and shares with me her efforts. Thus we both have flavorful local tomatos all year. ("extreme" local). I ride my bike over to her house to pick-up the jars. It's a tomato paradise. Mass produced and shipped grocery store tomatos disappoint every time. They are the epitome of tomato hell.

by Tina on Sep 21, 2011 11:54 am