I am sure -- sure -- that WF blessed areas rapidly gentrifying has nothing to do with WF real estate team making sure they place their stores in area that have enough income potential to pay for $150 grocery bills.

Or that once a WF is in the area lenders might ease up on ther retailers.

by charlie on May 7, 2012 8:40 am • link • report

Reading on the washington post article, what scares me the most is how mis-informed certain objectors are of the actual "union rule". Some people actually believe that what is being argued is over ONLY union labor will be allowed. That would be in direct conflict with right to work, this contract format allows any party who is qualified to submit a proposal including non-union.

It's all posterity anyways I think we all know whichever contract Bechtel puts in is the one that will win seeing as they have moved their corporate operations to northern virginia and there will be some back scratching back. This is all election year non-sense which has fervored up some GOP tea partiers. Bechtel will win the contract and they like using sub contractors who are unions because it means less headaches and redos for them.

End of story, lets just flippin tell Loudoun and PWC to go build their roads without the rest of northern virginias help and be done with this non-sense already.

by Tysons Engineer on May 7, 2012 9:24 am • link • report

Is there any indication that increased density is warranted for the Beauregard area? As far as I know, the neighborhood has only bus service and being next to 395 surely means additional traffic. Weren't these problems the original reason to oppose the Mark Center?

Maybe they're hoping DoD employees will move into the neighborhood? Though it would be interesting to see how many people have already moved to be closer to the new building; my guess is not many.

by Adam L on May 7, 2012 9:27 am • link • report

the positive health benefits of bike riding may also outweigh the danger of riding without a helmet.

Sounds odd. Much like "the positive financial benefits of not having car insurance outweighs the danger of hitting a vehicle from behind."

BTW, teachers have once again been "excessed" with very little fanfare. Yet another case study on how to govern.

by HogWash on May 7, 2012 9:35 am • link • report

@HogWash

Sounds odd. Much like "the positive financial benefits of not having car insurance outweighs the danger of hitting a vehicle from behind."

That makes no sense. We force people to carry car insurance not because it makes sense for them, but so that other people who might be hit have coverage. It's required because a crash can impact the safety of others.

A bike helmet, on the other hand, only impacts my safety.

If you wanted to make a more reasonable comparison, you could compare riding without a helmet to driving without your seat belt on.

by Alex B. on May 7, 2012 9:40 am • link • report

@adam

City of Alex is planning on transit only lanes (bus for the foreseeable future) on Beauregard - some buses would go from there onto the HOV at Seminary, others would continue on the transitway to Shirlington.

Its also likely that DOD employees will move to the area - not into the unrenovated walk ups though. City of Alex expects that if the hirises are not built, the owners will renovate the buildings and raise rents.

by AWalkerInTheCity on May 7, 2012 9:41 am • link • report

If you wanted to make a more reasonable comparison, you could compare riding without a helmet to driving without your seat belt on.

Yes, and only then if you could show that mandatory seat belt laws tend to reduce the amount of driving that people do. And that driving conveys health benefits.

by oboe on May 7, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

Yes, and only then if you could show that mandatory seat belt laws tend to reduce the amount of driving that people do. And that driving conveys health benefits.

Ha. Truth.

Baby steps, oboe. Baby steps.

by Alex B. on May 7, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

That article is sick. Commenters are so misinformed on the union thing. My favorite was the guy who blamed unions for bankrupting America... Seriously???

by Kyle W on May 7, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

@Alex, That makes no sense.

Uhm, it does make sense. You just used a better analogy.

by HogWash on May 7, 2012 10:21 am • link • report

City of Alex is planning on transit only lanes (bus for the foreseeable future) on Beauregard

How many times in our region's history has this been promised? Every major project since the 1950s has included some provision for bus/transit lanes, and it's almost never actually come to fruition.

by andrew on May 7, 2012 11:40 am • link • report

@ andrew - I'm not sure what you mean? how many times has it been promised in the Beauregard area? In city of Alex? In major upzonings of old apt complexes similar to this?

New transit lanes in crystal city are supposed to be underway in 2013. If you mean transit starts in general, the silver line is current UC.

The City of Alex has been heavily studying transit in the beauregard corridor, and I see no reason to expect them not to implement one of the proposed solutions, indeed I expect the upzoning will be contingent on it.

by AWalkerInTheCity on May 7, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

@Alex B:
I agree with you on car insurance and bike helmets. But, consider also that one of the major arguments for passing laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets is that when they become vegetables, they become a very expensive burden on society. Their crash affects only them physically but the financial burden goes far wider.

Now, bicycling tends to occur at much lower speeds than motorcycles and so injuries tend to be much less severe. I know - took me several concussions and many stitches to learn to wear a helmet... As the attending physician in the ER once said to me, "Do you know how lucky you are? Would you like me to give you a tour of the head trauma unit?" She was vicious. And, it was just what I needed.

by Thick Skull on May 7, 2012 11:55 am • link • report

@Thick Skull

To echo oboe's point, riding a motorcycle doesn't provide the health benefits of exercise that a bicycle does. Yes, there's a risk of head trauma (substantially lower than that of a motorcycle, due to the fact that my bicycle can't do 65mph on the freeway), but the net benefits are much more positive.

by Alex B. on May 7, 2012 12:06 pm • link • report

I think Yates was focused on fitting the description of the article in a single sentence, but it came across as "helmet wearing versus exercise" instead of "helmet wearing, exercise, and other bike share stuff," Hogwash. It did sound odd.

by selxic on May 7, 2012 12:39 pm • link • report

@Adam L: in short, if Alexandria wants to grow their tax base, then yes densification is warranted. The city basically has no more greenfield left. And once Potomac Yard develops, there will be very little brownfield left as well.

Something plan opponents either fail to understand or just flat out hate is that the developers can, by right, almost double the square footage of development along Beauregard. The city is thus doing a small area plan so they can leverage the developers for some city improvements in return for a higher volume of development.

by Froggie on May 7, 2012 12:40 pm • link • report

Amazing that NYC got Citi to put 41 million for advertising for its bikeshare (and 9.5 million from Mastercard). We need something similar here in DC.

by HStreetLandlord on May 7, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report

The article about less affordability in DC confirms what I've been noticing for a while. IMO, after a while the only people who will be living here are people making a lot of money who can actually afford the increasing market rent, or poorer people who qualify for vouchers or the 20% of units in new buildings that have to be held below market. Everyone else in between will get squeezed out- not rich enough, or too much money to qualify for vouchers/below market rent.

Brings up a curious dilemma. Someone who may be doing pretty well
might not be able to stay here.

by Nickyp on May 7, 2012 12:59 pm • link • report

consider also that one of the major arguments for passing laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets is that when they become vegetables, they become a very expensive burden on society. Their crash affects only them physically but the financial burden goes far wider.

While this is all true, the reason helmet laws for motorcyclists is justified is that, while many, many motorcyclists die and are permanently damaged every year (just as many, many automobile drivers are), if you consider such injuries to cyclists, it's so rare that *statistically* you might as well say it doesn't happen.

And while doctors absolutely are among the most exercised about cycling and helmets, they don't really know anything about helmet efficacy or accident rates. They just know they don't want people to bang their heads on things--if it were culturally acceptable to berate you for not wearing a helmet while walking, the average emergency room doctor would.

Asking an emergency room doctor whether you should wear a helmet is like asking a priest if you should refrain from premarital sex. It's not an invalid perspective, but you're unlikely to get a nuanced answer.

by oboe on May 7, 2012 1:05 pm • link • report

I actually oppose mandatory motorcycle helmet laws for the same reason I oppose bike helmet laws. The "your injury will cost me money" is an argument I could use to insist that you wear NASCAR style helmets and fire-protective suits whenever you ride in a car. Except that, unlike bike helmets, I can probably prove that those things will save lives.

by David C on May 7, 2012 2:07 pm • link • report

Helmet laws are unpopular with motorcyclists, because (1) it decreases their ability to see and hear the surroundings and (2) they figure that if they get into a crash at speed, they are dead anyway. It is like telling a soldier on the front lines to quit smoking because they will die of cancer.

Medical types call them "donorcycles" because of the unlikeliness of crash survival.

Bicyclists, otoh, will probably survive a crash, but as a vegetable. Thus the "cost to society" helmet argument is stronger for bicycling.

by goldfish on May 7, 2012 2:27 pm • link • report

Bicyclists, otoh, will probably survive a crash, but as a vegetable.

I don't believe you can back that up with anything close to a fact.

by David C on May 7, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report

@David C: all I am say is that helmets for bicyclists are effective -- I do not think that is controversial. See here for the literature on this.

by goldfish on May 7, 2012 2:38 pm • link • report

@Oboe:
"Asking an emergency room doctor whether you should wear a helmet..."

I didn't ask her, she forcefully berated me as she stitched up my forehead... At one point, after putting in 3 stitches (she had five more to go) she got called away. As she left the room, she left the thread/needle dangling and said to me "don't go anywhere".

But, again, I agree - helmets on bicyclists save lives. They've saved mine twice for sure and maybe 2-3 other times (I crash a lot. Less as I've gotten older and, I'd claim, wiser...).

And, I wholeheartedly agree that from a public health perspective we're better off increasing bicycling even if there is no concomitant increase in helmet wearing.

by Thick Skull on May 7, 2012 3:03 pm • link • report

@goldfish And I could point you to a lot of evidence that contradicts this. For example, check out - and try to explain - this graph. Look at the wikipedia article on bike helmets for more

by David C on May 7, 2012 3:07 pm • link • report

The article about less affordability in DC confirms what I've been noticing for a while. IMO, after a while the only people who will be living here are people making a lot of money who can actually afford the increasing market rent, or poorer people who qualify for vouchers or the 20% of units in new buildings that have to be held below market.

It's a common mistake to equate "below market rate" with "poor people housing". I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard it argued that the city doesn't do nearly enough to protect poor people in DC because its affordable housing programs target middle-income households too much:

http://www.smartergrowth.net/anx/ass/library/11/whatisaffordableworkforcehousingfordc.pdf

by oboe on May 7, 2012 3:46 pm • link • report

@goldfish said:

@David C: all I am say is that helmets for bicyclists are effective...

...but first [s]he said:

Bicyclists, otoh, will probably survive a crash, but as a vegetable.

Look, what's missing in this debate are numbers of all the cyclists who are now vegetables because they didn't wear a helmet.

We have scads of people who somehow managed to survive a minor injuries and claim afterwards that their brains would've been "splattered all over the pavement but for my helmet".

We have ER doctors who think pretty much everyone should be wrapped in bubble wrap 24/7, because all they see during every 12 hour shift is people who've been injured in all sorts of horrible ways.

The "studies" you cite are pretty much par for the course, though: when you scratch away at them even the least bit, they're revealed to be pretty thin stuff. (For example, the German study showed "(2 deaths in unhelmeted cyclists, no deaths in helmeted group)." Quite the n they've got there.

Meanwhile, what might shed some light on the injury figures is a look at who are most likely to wear helmets. My guess is that the middle-class law-abiding recreational cyclist is most likely to wear a helmet. The guy who lost his drivers' license, and is returning home drunk, lightless, and salmoning...not so much.

An lo and behold, the helmetless guy gets killed more often.

If we had half as many authority figures tut-tutting about people riding without lights, or against traffic, we might save some lives.

The problem here is that serious bicycle-car collisions are so rare that it's hard to get a decent study. So instead we get really, really bad studies.

by oboe on May 7, 2012 4:00 pm • link • report

Brings up a curious dilemma. Someone who may be doing pretty well might not be able to stay here.

*Raises hand.* I'll be your data point if you want it.

I'm being illegally evicted from my DC apartment at the end of this month, and will likely be relocating to North Bethesda, because it's pretty much the only thing I can afford in the region that won't be a terrible commute.

I'm single, educated, and make more than the US Household median. My salary has stayed constant for the past few years, and fortunately, so had my rent. Now that I'm being thrust back into the housing market, I'm finding myself priced out of DC entirely. Honestly, I hadn't realized that things had gotten as bad as they are.

I'll be back in DC eventually, since I'll probably be able to find affordable housing once I have some more time to look for it, but I simply can't justify spending half of my posttax income to live in an unrenovated basement in Trinidad.

by andrew on May 7, 2012 4:03 pm • link • report

There is a big difference between Phase I and Phase II of Dulles Rail with respect to PLAs. For Phase I, Dulles Transit Partners voluntarily signed a PLA. MWAA has rejected this approach for Phase II, first trying to mandate a PLA and now giving bidding credits, which can push up the cost, for the use of a PLA.
A right-to-work state seeks to limit the power of unions over workers. That policy should be respected just as much as that in other states that permit unions to require a worker to join the union or pay equivalent dues as a condition of working. Federal law recognizes both as options. Most Virginia construction workers are not union members. They would likely get more of the construction jobs on Phase II without a PLA. Since neither Maryland nor the District set aside any construction jobs for non-union Virginia workers, why should Virginia effectively set aside jobs for union workers from Maryland and the District by accepting a mandatory PLA?
MWAA should just drop the bidding credits and let the market decided whether a PLA is used.

by tmtfairfax on May 7, 2012 4:20 pm • link • report

@tmt

first of all its not unions that require payment of dues in non "right to work states" its actually the contracts signed between employer and union that do so - perhaps we ought to call those states "freedom of contract states" as opposed to right to work states.

Second Virginia may ban agency contracts, but I dont think its fair to attribute a motivation. I am a citizen of Virginia, and I am skeptical of that claimed motivation. I think it has more to do with keeping wages down and being "business friendly" than anything else.

The MWAA, as a purchaser of contracting services IS part of the market - in a market, buyers can specify the attributes they want to take into account in buying services.

If loss of market share due to the socalled right to work laws is hurting virginia contractors, our legislature has the option to reconsider those laws.

by AWalkerInTheCity on May 7, 2012 4:32 pm • link • report

@AWalkerintheCity:

"its not unions that require payment of dues in non "right to work states" its actually the contracts signed between employer and union that do so - perhaps we ought to call those states 'freedom of contract states'"

99% of the time it's the union that's trying to get that in collective bargaining, not the employer, so it's fair to ascribe the requirement to the union. It's not like the contract winks into existence absent their efforts.

Also, "freedom of contract state" would be a pretty ironic label from the standpoint of the unemployed worker looking for a job, however, because a he's losing his ability to freely contract for a job through the contract you describe -- and he's not able to participate in the bargaining for that contract.

by Arl Fan on May 7, 2012 4:58 pm • link • report

The MWAA, as a purchaser of contracting services IS part of the market - in a market, buyers can specify the attributes they want to take into account in buying services.

But MWAA isn't really the end buyer. The end buyer are various constituencies of VA taxpayers and if their elected officials don't want an advantage given to unions, MWAA should respect that.

by Falls Church on May 7, 2012 9:10 pm • link • report

@oboe, I don't get your point. Are you saying that bike helmets are NOT effective?

by goldfish on May 8, 2012 9:37 am • link • report