Transit
Anti-transit ideology endangers Silver Line
Transit advocates should take heed of Steven Pearlstein's insight into the battle over the Silver Line and fight back against the anti-transit ideology that lies just under the surface and threatens transit projects everywhere.
Photo by Patrick DB on Flickr.
This weekend, Pearlstein wrote in the Washington Post, "So what are we arguing about here? Politics. Ideology. Certainly nothing that is worth risking the most important economic development project in the region."
To see the ideological anti-transit forces at work, compare the recent death of a rail megaproject in New Jersey to the situation unfolding in Virginia with the Silver Line extension.
In late 2010, New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie rejected $6 billion in funds from Federal and other non-state sources to build a new commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River into Manhattan. The project would have provided tens of thousands of jobs now and in the future, created over $100 million of business activity per year, increased the value of homes nearby, created huge amounts of tax revenues for the State of New Jersey, and eased the commute for hundreds of thousands people who have to get in to Manhattan from Northern Jersey every day.
And the independent Government Accountability Office confirmed these lost benefits just last month in a well-researched and detailed report.
Despite those cold, hard facts and the fact that New Jersey would have been on the hook for only about 14 percent of the project's total cost, the New Jersey Governor killed the project. The Governor veiled his anti-transit actions in the ideology of austerity
A closer look at the facts reveals that Governor Christie falsely inflated the short-term economic cost of the project in his mission to kill a well-funded, well-planned, and hugely beneficial public transit project. Now that his assertions about funding have been largely debunked, we can see what anti-transit forces have attempted to hide: an ideological opposition to transit itself.
Simply put, there is a vocal movement that rejects the notion that public transit has or should have a place in our development, let alone a place of priority. And some politicians are responding to that movement.
Now, anti-transit forces in Virginia are also pursuing a similar veiled anti-transit ideology as they attempt to kill phase 2 of the Metro Rail extension to Dulles Airport.
The project is the largest expansion of Metro rail lines in the D.C. Metropolitan Area since Metro was built in the 1970s. Like the Hudson River tunnel in New Jersey, the Silver Line would move thousands of people a day by rail through one of the most congested areas in the United States. It would (and has already) created jobs and other economic benefits. The project is being managed by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and is currently in Phase I, which extends the rail from East Falls Church through Tysons Corner.
Phase I has been an unqualified success. It is scheduled to be completed on time and it is on budget. The project also has an exemplary safety record
Then anti-transit forces stepped in and Governor McDonnell changed his mind, threatening to withhold funding unless the Airports Authority changed the requirement that the biggest contractors on Phase II use the same union hiring halls that were used to staff Phase I
To avoid a fight, the Airports Authority was flexible and it changed the bidding to accommodate Governor McDonnell's request, implementing a system that would give bidders using the same hiring halls from Phase I extra points in the competition for the contract but not requiring their use.
Apparently this hasn't appeased Governor McDonnell's anti-transit donors because the Governor is now threatening to kill the project unless the preference system is dropped entirely.
Anti-transit forces in Virginia have now created a full-blown crisis on account of their ideological opposition to using union labor on any project
Transit advocates should be wary of the stated ideological reasons given for killing these projects because they veil another ideology that fundamentally opposes the expansion of public transit.
The Virginia and New Jersey cases
Anti-transit ideologues veil their opposition to transit projects with other ideological memes that incite their base
But make no mistake, if the anti-transit ideologues had any predisposition to implement real transit solutions, they would cast aside those ideological battles in favor of the compromises and heavy subsidies they have been offered to move the transit projects forward.
Their absolute refusal to do so in favor of other pet ideological battles
John Durkalski lives in Columbia Heights and is an attorney at Butsavage & Associates, PC. He represents unions, including those working in retail, construction, government, and public transit, and progressive groups working for a more just and livable world.
 |
Comments
@ggwash
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 10:55 am • link • report
Also, the media has reported Phase I is approximately over budget by $150 million.
by tmtfairfax on May 11, 2012 10:56 am • link • report
This culture war has been going on in different permutations since the time of the great slave-state/free-state debates during the Philadelphia Convention.
Fortunately, as we've seen reflected in the polling numbers on gay marriage, "Real Americans" are a dying breed. As a prescient reader of TPM observed recently, "The entirety of this election is generational, with racial and cultural layers built over it. And the Ryan budget is the keystone of that: make everybody under 54 pay full Medicare for everybody over and then cut them off. Generational warfare is the core animating force of our politics."
by oboe on May 11, 2012 11:04 am • link • report
by watcher on May 11, 2012 11:18 am • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 11:20 am • link • report
"Im not sure what McDonnell's real agenda is, but I'm still not convinced that phase 2 of the silver line can't proceed anyway, with a termination at Dulles - MWAA and FFX county want it to."
It would be possible to build it like that with the funding scenario you suggest, but it would also likely lessen the viability of the Silver Line itself. Those two additional park-and-ride stations at the end of the Silver Line are expected to make up the majority of the line's passengers. I just don't see commuters paying for the toll road to get to one of the three (yes, only three) stations between Dulles and Tysons that having parking, and then paying for parking, and then paying for the train. I don't see the Silver Line being viable unless commuters can skip congestion on the DTR, Rt. 7, and Rt. 606 altogether and get right on the train.
by Adam L on May 11, 2012 11:28 am • link • report
Second the antiunion thing has a draw of its own for the GOP nationally, and McDonnel may be counting on that to improve his chances of a VEEP nomination.
Third, some of the folks in NoVa against the Silver line, are not moved so much by the Silver line, but by narrow economic calculations. Folks who live in western Loudoun in particular, see little direct positive impact on their house prices from the Loudoun stations (since they are pretty much out of reasonable commuting distance even to Tysons, even with the Silver line). To the extent they think they CAN stop the whole project, and avoid the DTR toll increases (which impact even their commutes to Reston) they may see a benefit to stopping it. Add to this that any TOD in Loudoun will shift the political balance in Loudoun.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 11:28 am • link • report
Good point, but in theory they can get to Herndon (assuming Floris/coppermine/whatever isnt built or is built without much parking) via other roads I think without taking DTR. Some of course will take the bus to the Silver Line - maybe not so much now, but in the future as parking in Tysons gets more costly/difficult.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 11:31 am • link • report
by goldfish on May 11, 2012 11:31 am • link • report
I don't know how you quantify levels of opposition, but read the comments against the Tide on the hamptonroads website.
by watcher on May 11, 2012 11:37 am • link • report
Christie does deserve a black eye on his record for killing the ARC project, though. What a dumb decision.
by H Street Landlord on May 11, 2012 11:37 am • link • report
by NikolasM on May 11, 2012 11:39 am • link • report
by Jack D. on May 11, 2012 11:40 am • link • report
Again, I am going by comments I am reading (in this case, the WaPo website) about the Silver Line. While there are sincere and legitimate questions, it does seem that a lot of the opposition is based on knee-jerk ideology.
by watcher on May 11, 2012 11:41 am • link • report
by dc denizen on May 11, 2012 11:43 am • link • report
We are evolving into a New York, or London, so it's obvious one would learn from thier success, which seems indisputably tied to their extensive rail transit systems. Nothing. It's the "smarty pants" telling the regular folks what to do, when I can't help thinking that healthier and wealthier cities would shift more political strength to the dem's and therefore be bad for them.
The silver lining (no pun) is that untimatly, every party follows the money, so once it's in place, every political stripe will line up their projects. It's just that right now, working outside their comfort zone gives them a disadvantage in the economic competition, something they've enjoyed for the last fifty years. You would think they'd love the "competition", funny.
by Thayer-D on May 11, 2012 11:44 am • link • report
Or the metro to Dulles is part of a long term plan to herd people into cattlecars.
The point is that there is a large amount of political benefit to VA politicians to whip up resentment among their constituents about the Silver Line, and they're going to work it for all it's worth.
by JustMe on May 11, 2012 11:45 am • link • report
The opposition to The Tide in Norfolk better exemplified the "transit is a socialist waste of taxpayer money that no one will ever use and will fill our neighborhoods with criminal low-lifes" attitude.
by Fred Gouge on May 11, 2012 11:46 am • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 11:46 am • link • report
Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce supports phase 2, which probably has a lot to do with why SOME GOP bd members support it. One gop bd member (Del gaudio) is a culture warrior, and others (from western Loudoun) are less attuned to the development vision of the Chamber.
As for Richmond, I dont think the Loudoun Chamber has that much clout down there.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 11:50 am • link • report
Anyone can find jackass opinions on the street, some which twist legitimate ideology to service prejudice. That is not the point -- the opposition that is serious deserves to be treated that way. But this article treats them as jackasses.
by goldfish on May 11, 2012 11:54 am • link • report
In our present case, the line should be ended at the airport - with a proper station like we have in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
by Dan Gamber on May 11, 2012 11:55 am • link • report
The McDonnel admin has stated their rationale for opposing funding is the labor issue. That may or may not be be a mask for antitransit ideology, but its certainly not consitent with your claim that the issue (for the commonwealth, not for the loudoun county antis) is benefit cost.
Now gov Christie did say it was Benefit cost, but his arguments seem questionable, at best.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 12:05 pm • link • report
You either build what you've got when you've got it or you get nothing for decades. That's the game that the anti-transit reactionaries are playing. If they win, Virginia won't get any federal transit money as long as anyone alive today lives. Virginia, just like most everywhere in the country, needs more transit.
by Cavan on May 11, 2012 12:06 pm • link • report
Since it appears that the labor issue is lost for them, the supporters have a choice: give in on the labor, find other funding, or let the project die.
by goldfish on May 11, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report
why do you need parking lots at Dulles? MWAA is never going to allow commuter parking at Dulles in any case. The logical place for commuter parking for Loudoun commuters if there are no louduon stations is Floris/Coppermine IF that can be funded. Otherwise the loudoun commuters can try to get to the garages at Herndona and Reston.
The rail yards issue I am less familiar with.
As for federal money, I dont think FTA is going to punish Pike Rail, say, for the shenanigans of LC. They can are not blind to whats going on here.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 12:12 pm • link • report
Americans don't ride trains anymore
They used to. Before the interstates were built. The completion of the transcontinental railroad was quite a big deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad
From that page:
Six years after the groundbreaking, laborers of the Central Pacific Railroad from the west and the Union Pacific Railroad from the east met at Promontory Summit, Utah. It was here on May 10, 1869, that Stanford drove The Last Spike (or golden spike) which is now on display at the Cantor Arts Center at Stanford University, that joined the rails of the transcontinental railroad. (A second "Lost" Golden Spike is also on display at the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento.[27]) In perhaps the world's first live mass-media event, the hammers and spike were wired to the telegraph line so that each hammer stroke would be heard as a click at telegraph stations nationwide—the hammer strokes were missed, so the clicks were sent by the telegraph operator. As soon as the ceremonial spike had been replaced by an ordinary iron spike, a message was transmitted to both the East Coast and West Coast that simply read, "DONE." The country erupted in celebration upon receipt of this message. Travel from coast to coast was reduced from six months or more to just one week.
by Jasper on May 11, 2012 12:15 pm • link • report
Since it appears that the labor issue is lost for them, the supporters have a choice: give in on the labor, find other funding, or let the project die."
Seems like a poker game to me, since the most likely other funding is the DTR tolls, which hits the Loudoun folks hard, esp if there are no stations in Loudoun. FFX and MWAA are going to tell the Loudoun bd they will build phase 2, damn the torpedoes, and raise the tolls as high as necessary, whether they really intend to or not - cause that changes the risks faced by the Loudoun bd - Loudoun antis. Question is, whos bluffing?
Assuming USDOT can't pull of a deal in advance, Loudoun has to play their cards first, not knowing what FFX and MWAA will actually do.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 12:16 pm • link • report
by Vinh An Nguyen on May 11, 2012 12:32 pm • link • report
by Bossi on May 11, 2012 12:34 pm • link • report
I doubt Rest of VA culture warriors appreciate the fine cultural distinctions - anyone who likes urban living is hipster enough.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 12:52 pm • link • report
First of all, let's consider the states themselves. New Jersey is a relatively liberal state in the Northeast, and Virginia is a pretty conservative Southern state. Politically transit is a very important issue in the Northeast, even for Republicans who usually have their heads up their a** when it comes to transit. These densely populated (and liberal) states like Maryland, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have large, dedicated transit agencies and multiple systems operating within their border.
Virginia has no rail transit whatsoever except Metro (which has less stops and branches in VA than in MD or DC) and VRE (which has a ridership of <20,000). Every year Virginia funding for both of these systems and related projects seems to be in jeopardy. If I remember correctly VRE has raised fares about 3 times over the past 3 years, despite record ridership. Simply put transit funding is not a priority in Virginia as a state (except for the Arlington County govt), but it is (generally speaking) in New Jersey.
Next, let's look at the projects concerned. THE/ARC Tunnel connecting NJ to NY would $8.7 billion. That's an extremely heavy price tag for any transit project, but this is a single tunnel (with an accompanying expansion of NYP). Not only that, but there's already an existing, albeit congested, tunnel. Plus, Amtrak is planning a nearly identical project. NJ (the second wealthiest state after MD) had it's budget hit much harder by the recession than VA's.
The total price of the entire Silver Line (all 23 miles and 11 stations) is $6.8 billion ($2 billion difference). In addition, the line goes through the largest, and by far, the most important business district in the entire state and Dulles. I don't think anyone could argue that on a cost-benefit analysis the Silver Line easily trumps THE/ARC tunnel by leaps and bounds making it an easy decision whether to fund it or not.
Idiotic things such as denying the entire $300 million for the project in the legislative session, requiring non-union labor, Loudoun questioning the obvious "economic benefit," and the Washington Post poll saying Virginian's are against the project just goes shows that the state doesn't care about transit.
by different situations on May 11, 2012 12:52 pm • link • report
responsible for those plans have been booted from office. The current crop believes construction costs are too high, the projected operational costs are fiction, the benefits are vastly overstated, and that Euro-envy is not a sufficient reason to support the plans.
Take these things one at a time.
1. Construction costs. Loudoun already has its hands full trying to keep up with the awkward combination of extreme population growth and an excess of crappy housing inventory. Now they are expected to pony up 9 figures to accelerate population growth and ignore the crappy housing
inventory. This is not what Loudoun residents want to hear.
2. When has Metro stayed on budget? They can't even maintain their escalator system. Why should we believe that they can handle another 20 miles of above ground track?
3. People have this vision of Herndon-Monroe and Ashburn-Broadlands magically transforming into Clarendon-Ballston. Why? Arlington's best asset is its proximity to Washington. If you live in that corridor, you can be in DC in minutes. Out west, the only place in similar proximity is
Reston - nice place but not exactly a destination and certainly not enough that people will give up their cars like they can in Arlington or DC. These rosy projections are not based in reality. You're asking people to pay a premium to live in high density even though they will still need their cars for everything but commuting. How
is this an improvement? The bus is already faster and more convenient for a large amount of the population and those who can't use the bus won't be able to use Metro either. On the commercial side, you already have a huge vacuum in the redevelopment of Tysons. There are not that many employers willing to relocate to western NOVA, especially when a redeveloped Tysons is a much better location strategically.
4. All that is left is Euro-envy but wait a minute. In Paris, London, and Brussels, not only are there trains but express trains. Even if this system is built, Euro-envy will remain because there are no plans for express trips on Metro. Airport riders headed to DC or anywhere east of
I395 would be better off with a VRE station at Dulles that connected to DC via Manassas!
by movement on May 11, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report
http://www.28freeway.com/project-map/14-citphaseII.html
I think the biggest issue for Loundon County is the Dulles Greenway tolls. Growth will be difficult around the potential new stations with a $5.00 toll road along side
by mcs on May 11, 2012 1:31 pm • link • report
You mischarecterize the state of GOP politics in Loudoun. My understanding is that at least two members of the current board support phase 2. If it was politically a slam dunk they would already have held the vote, instead of delaying.
And Reston town center is already well on its way to walkable urbanism, and Tysons will get there. Even Herndon has a big project underway. Also you dont need to be carfree to find a big advantage to walkable/TOD.
Also the building a rail line from Manassas to Dulles just to serve the airport would be far more cost prohibitive than the silver line under the most pessimistic (for the silver line) scenario.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report
is this an improvement?"
maybe you should ask the people who already pay a premium to live in RTC or Tysons.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 1:39 pm • link • report
REPUBLICANS RAWR
by Chef on May 11, 2012 1:52 pm • link • report
maybe you should ask the people who already pay a premium to live in RTC or Tysons.
Walkable and TOD have nothing to do with each other. Leesburg, Reston Town Center, and much of Alexandria are very walkable and are not TOD. What do Herndon-Monroe and Ashburn-Broadlands have to do with these places? They are polar opposites.
Also the building a rail line from Manassas to Dulles just to serve the airport would be far more cost prohibitive than the silver line under the most pessimistic (for the silver line) scenario.
Not if you don't elevate the track. Most of the land between the two is undeveloped and/or parkland.
by movement on May 11, 2012 2:06 pm • link • report
by goldfish on May 11, 2012 2:13 pm • link • report
If MWAA is taking the Loudoun revolt seriously, I would think they would be (quietly) constructing a Plan B.
by jim on May 11, 2012 2:15 pm • link • report
A. while walkable and Transit convenient are not the same thing, I think TOD usually does mean walkable, at least to transit. And walkable to transit and walkable to other things reinforce each other. But to the point, they are examples of places outside the core where people currently play a premium for high density, the possibility of which you appeared to question
B. Giving up parkland is not likely, and undeveloped land must be paid for, and track must be paid for and maintained, and if you build at surface you have to deal with road grade crossings. Its not a serious possibility, just more distraction from the issue at hand.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 11, 2012 2:23 pm • link • report
Yeah, widening I-66 is stupid idea, because, you know, there is already an existing, albeit congested, road.
by Jasper on May 11, 2012 2:30 pm • link • report
But elected officials who want to closely examine the cost to their taxpayers of a $6 billion rail transit project of questionable benefit to them are "hostage takers" motivated by "anti-transit ideology".
I get it. Thanks for clearing it up.
by ceefer66 on May 11, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report
Also, if the unions are so great as the pro-union folks claim, why not let them compete on their own merit on a level playing field. Why is it necessary to provide them a 10% advantage over everyone else? That doesn't sound like fair play.
Also, the Loudoun stations are critical to the success of Tyson's transformation which is the basis for the Silver Line rationale. Tysons needs workers from loudoun to commute in on the silver line to make its financial projections which is why the silver line makea sense in the first place.
by Falls Church on May 11, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report
by alison on May 11, 2012 3:31 pm • link • report
I agree. Unions and non-unionized labor should compete. The one who can do more for less pay is the winner!
by RickT on May 11, 2012 4:20 pm • link • report
I believe the logic is that this group of people have performed well already and already know the job. Hiring someone who already knows the job in addition to someone who you already know to be a good performer is a huge advantage from the employers perspective: Less time lost to learning curve, fewer resources lost to mistakes, less stress wondering if they can do it, less uncertainty all around.
It makes sense to keep the same set of workers to continue the job. Getting rid of them solely b/c they belong to union seems counterproductive.
by Tina on May 11, 2012 4:28 pm • link • report
Even if I'm wrong with the above events, maybe Phase 2 can be dealt with the same way--- the airport funds a direct, express connection through Loudoun to the airport. Twenty years from now, when Loudoun is choking on traffic as Tyson is now, they can build in-fill stations. But, they should be solely responsible for the cost of the stations, but also for part of the cost of the original build.
by wr on May 11, 2012 5:42 pm • link • report
It started smelling bad to me when the originally-planned simple, direct rail link to Dulles (which I supported BTW) was hijacked by the "let's turn Tysons Corner into a urban
utopia so we can pretend we're like Europe" interests and morphed into the "spur economic growth" (the same thing that's called "sprawl" and "unsustainable" when it's caused by a road) monster it's become with all the extra stops in Tysons and Loudon.
From the start, it's been fishy. Consider the way it was bum-rushed with hardly any hearings or studies. The ICC, which cost one-third as much, received far more scrutiny
over decades - endless hearings, numerous lawsuits and multiple court cases. Not to mention being an issue in more than one election.
The Silver Line process has encountered none of that. And now that Virginia officials want to take a close look and how THEIR money is being spent, the name-calling from transit advocates - many of whom aren't paying the cost and will never ride the thing - are howling about "anti-transit ideology"?
In some people's mind, it's rail at any cost no matter what. Look for $10 one-way tolls within the next 3 years.
I wonder what the fares will be.
by ceefer66 on May 11, 2012 6:12 pm • link • report
For whatever reasons the Republicans just hate rail-based public transportation, Amtrak, and high-speed rail. It has become ideological to hate trains for the sake of it. And in the meantime the US transportation system continues to fall behind the rest of the world.
I have a feeling, though, that they will reach a compromise at the last minute. I think a lot of this is public posturing and that, knowing how high the stakes are, all parties will reach an agreement.
by Rain17 on May 11, 2012 11:08 pm • link • report
I don't know the specifics of the Silver Line RFP but typically, large government contracts are evaluated on the basis of "best value". This usually comprises four criteria: technical approach, price, past performance, and key personnel. Past performance is usually weighted very significantly, so the Phase I contractor would have a significant leg up on the competition. In fact, I've heard from folks in-the-know that the Phase I contractor (Bechtel) will likely win Phase II for that reason. It should be up to that contractor to make the determination whether hiring union workers for the low-level jobs (the high level jobs are never union staff) is worth the premium. The contractor is in the best position and has the greatest expertise to make that determination.
Ceefer,
It started smelling bad to me when the originally-planned simple, direct rail link to Dulles (which I supported BTW) was hijacked by the "let's turn Tysons Corner into a urban
utopia so we can pretend we're like Europe" interests and morphed into the "spur economic growth"
The Silver Line, since its inception was an idea led by business for business. It was never about a rail link to Dulles (that was just a catchy marketing phrase). It was always about making MONEY -- for businesses, land owners (big and small), and for the state (via job creation and increased property tax revenue). From day one, McDonnell (who I'm generally not a fan of) has said his administration would be about jobs and spurring economic growth. The Silver Line fits right into that and spurring economic growth is the #1 reason McDonnell enjoys such high approval ratings. Economic growth and jobs is what Virginians wants.
Here's what the Silver Line has always been about -- 100K new permanent jobs, 200K new residents, and $10B of property value increases in TYSONS ALONE. The Silver Line and Tysons Transformation has nothing to do with building an "urban utopia". It has to do with the almighty dollar and if you're not a fan of the almighty dollar, Virginia is not for you.
Virginia consistently ranks as the #1 or #2 most business friendly state. So, yes, it didn't tie up the Silver Line decision in endless red tape, hearings, and bureaucracy. I know that's how they like to do things in Maryland (and not just the ICC -- I have an investment property in New Carrollton and its TOD redevelopment, along with the Purple Line, has delays on top of delays on top of delays because of hearings and bureaucracy). But, that's not how we do things in VA.
by Falls Church on May 12, 2012 11:26 am • link • report
It started smelling bad to me when the originally-planned simple, direct rail link to Dulles (which I supported BTW) was hijacked by the "let's turn Tysons Corner into a urban
utopia so we can pretend we're like Europe" interests and morphed into the "spur economic growth" (the same thing that's called "sprawl" and "unsustainable" when it's caused by a road) monster it's become with all the extra stops in Tysons and Loudon.
1. The airport is a convenient destination, but this was never solely about the airport. It has always been about Tysons.
2. The land use changes in Tysons have nothing to do with emulating Europe. Walkable development in the urban form is the only logical outcome if Tysons wishes to grow further without choking on its own gridlock. In short, Tysons current growth pattern is indeed unsustainable, just not in any environmental sense of the word. It was too dense for car-only transportation, and not dense enough for a walkable place. Growing means density, density means walking, walking means transit. This was the only path forward.
3. Sprawl isn't just going out, sprawl has 4 main characersitics: a) location, b) low density, c) single, separated use developments, and d) auto-oriented design.
Stations in Loudoun don't need to be sprawling, since they (if designed well) might only meet a) above.
From the start, it's been fishy. Consider the way it was bum-rushed with hardly any hearings or studies. The ICC, which cost one-third as much, received far more scrutiny
over decades - endless hearings, numerous lawsuits and multiple court cases. Not to mention being an issue in more than one election.
Huh? This line was a dotted line on the original map when Metro was adopted in 1968. This is not a new idea, it hasn't been rammed through at all. I don't know where you got the idea that it is.
@movement
3. People have this vision of Herndon-Monroe and Ashburn-Broadlands magically transforming into Clarendon-Ballston. Why? Arlington's best asset is its proximity to Washington. If you live in that corridor, you can be in DC in minutes. Out west, the only place in similar proximity is
Reston - nice place but not exactly a destination and certainly not enough that people will give up their cars like they can in Arlington or DC. These rosy projections are not based in reality. You're asking people to pay a premium to live in high density even though they will still need their cars for everything but commuting. How
is this an improvement?
There's a middle ground between giving up your car and driving everywhere. Look at Rosslyn Ballston - those buildings have tons of parking, many residents own cars, and use them for certain trips. The key is choice - they don't have to drive everywhere.
So, yes, that's a big improvement.
by Alex B. on May 12, 2012 1:13 pm • link • report
Tysons is there for the increase in land values and the attempt to refocus Tysons. The airport is there because the MWAA can use DTR tolls to improve airport access. Reston and Herndon get stations because Fairfax sees opportunity.
But why Loudoun?
It's not as though there's massive ridership to be tapped. The FEIS estimated ridership at Rt 729 (the end station) at 6961, about in the middle of end station ridership (much less than Shady Grove or Vienna, less than New Carrollton, similar to Franconia/Springfield or Huntingdon, more than Branch Ave., Greenbelt or Glenmont), and less than the anticipated ridership further in at Herndon.
by jim on May 12, 2012 3:40 pm • link • report
He also commits to the $150 million, although states it is in the 2013 budget.
by H Street Landlord on May 12, 2012 3:42 pm • link • report
Part of it was pragmatic - they identified the site for the yard on the northern portion of the Dulles property, and once you're there it isn't far to put a station at Old Ox Road. Once you drop a station in Loudoun, then you'd need to get them to be a member of the compact, and to do so they'll want in on the planning and whatnot - and I suspect that's how they got another station added in.
by Alex B. on May 12, 2012 3:59 pm • link • report
To get employees that live in Loudoun to Tysons. It's that simple.
BTW: For the exact same reason, the Yellow Line needs to be extended not only to Ft Belvoir, but further down. Preferably along US-1 to Woodbridge and then further along the PW Parkway to Manassas. PW County can get rid of the overstock of sprawl development they have (just look at the housing crisis there) and fill in some density.
And while I'm on it: Fairfax can extend the Blue Line along VA-7100/287 and VA-123 to Burke, GMU, Fairfax City and Reston and the Orange and Silver Lines there. Also plenty of space to fill in density.
by Jasper on May 12, 2012 6:22 pm • link • report
But there simply aren't that many of them. The total ridership from the two Loudoun stations was estimated to be similar to the ridership from Shady Grove alone.
Once you extend into sprawl, it's very difficult to get ridership, since getting to the station requires a long drive; once committed to a long drive, people might as well drive the whole way, particularly from Loudoun to Tysons, where free parking awaits them.
by jim on May 12, 2012 8:08 pm • link • report
If that's the case, then why do all the seats fill up at Franconia-Springfield every morning?
You are partially right. Right now, there are not that many people in Loudoun. But Loudoun is exploding. Why do you think they're widening US-50 out there? Ever been to South Riding?
The Silver Line is being built for the coming 50 years, not the last 20. 20 years ago (in fact, 10 years ago), Clarendon and Court House had empty lots with weeds. Now it's booming there.
by Jasper on May 12, 2012 8:20 pm • link • report
But the post's point is well taken that the Silver Line, having carried zero passengers, has a better safety record than any other part of Metro.
by Turnip on May 12, 2012 10:37 pm • link • report
Franconia/Springfield has
1. Kingstowne. Straight shots, some even walkable, into the station.
2. Buses. WMATA and Fairfax Connector have combined to create a web of short bus routes south of the Beltway focused on Huntington and Franconia/Springfield.
3. I-95/395. No stretch of I-95/395 is easy driving, but north of the Springfield interchange (and the approach to it) is worse than other parts. There's strong motivation to exit at 644 and take Metro.
None of these are true for the Loudoun stations. Even the nearby developments provide winding routes to the nearest station. WMATA doesn't run buses in Loudoun. Will Loudoun? The Greenway doesn't get any worse right past the stations. There's no motive to exit and switch.
by jim on May 13, 2012 7:50 am • link • report
Loudoun politicos are visionless.
by Who Dat? on May 13, 2012 3:52 pm • link • report
1. Kingstowne. Straight shots, some even walkable, into the station.
At a very convenient 30 minutes walking. Franconia-Springfield is a disaster for walking. The mall, where nobody lives, is at least 15 minutes, and even the business park is 20 minutes.
2. Buses. WMATA and Fairfax Connector have combined to create a web of short bus routes south of the Beltway focused on Huntington and Franconia/Springfield.
I would assume Loudoun will be smart enough to start bussing its people around.
3. I-95/395. No stretch of I-95/395 is easy driving, but north of the Springfield interchange (and the approach to it) is worse than other parts. There's strong motivation to exit at 644 and take Metro.
Sure, and as more people start working in Tysons, the Greenway and DTR will fill up and force people to take buses and metro.
None of these are true for the Loudoun stations.
They will.
Even the nearby developments provide winding routes to the nearest station. WMATA doesn't run buses in Loudoun.
WMATA only has the 18R and S at F-S [well, and the stupid shuttle to the mall and business park]. Most are Fairfax Connectors.
Will Loudoun?
If they're smart they will.
The Greenway doesn't get any worse right past the stations. There's no motive to exit and switch.
There will be once the Greenway and DTR fill up with Tysons commuters. If Loudoun is smart they will develop a high density corridor to Leesburg. And one along US-50. Loudoun will find the coming decade that they can not funnel all traffic over the DTR and US-50. They will have to make some smart choices if they do not want to become another PW county with a massive overload of McMansions.
by Jasper on May 13, 2012 4:23 pm • link • report
Even MWAA has moved from the argument a significant number of Dulles Airport passengers will use rail. The ride to D.C. will take more than an hour. Only about 5-7% of passengers are expected to take rail to or from IAD.
Falls Church has it right. Dulles Rail is an attempt to help turn Tysons into a more urban place using, among others, access to rail.
by tmtfairfax on May 13, 2012 5:19 pm • link • report
Airports also employ huge numbers of people - I think the total employment at Dulles is on the order of 17,000 employees.
And no, travel from IAD to DC will not take more than an hour. Dulles to Metro Center will take 52 minutes:
http://planitmetro.com/2011/03/31/what-about-a-faster-transit-route-between-dulles-and-the-core/
by Alex B. on May 13, 2012 5:43 pm • link • report
by Tim Krepp on May 13, 2012 5:51 pm • link • report
Point being - the Silver line will get you to DC from Dulles in substantially less than an hour. tmt's statement is incorrect.
Likewise, as a DC resident myself, I can't help but think of my own personal usage of the Silver Line for getting to the airport - nevertheless, while comparatively few DC residents might live near Metro Center, there are a lot of hotels and other visitor amenities that airport travelers are likely to make use of.
by Alex B. on May 13, 2012 6:41 pm • link • report
And as it took me over an hour to get from Arlington Cemetery to Stadium-Armory yesterday, I think 52 minutes is going to be pretty rare.
by Tim Krepp on May 13, 2012 8:35 pm • link • report
There will be quite a few instances in which the metro will likely be quicker to Dulles than driving/or a car (ie any holiday, almost all rush hours etc).
It will certainly much, much cheaper in every instance than using a cab.
by H Street Landlord on May 13, 2012 8:57 pm • link • report
I don't disagree with your take on how you might use the line, but as H St Landlord says, platform to platform is the best objective measure we have. And that's the only reason I brought it up, because I've seen several comments in this thread (and others) that use travel time in a misleading and/or inaccurate fashion as a reason to not build the silver line.
Also, let's not forget how far away Dulles is. From Metro Center to the terminal at Dulles taking a route that approximately matches Metro is 27.5 miles. Covering that in 52 minutes gives the train an average speed (including time spent stopped at stations) of near 32 mph.
by Alex B. on May 13, 2012 9:21 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 13, 2012 9:42 pm • link • report
It will be interesting to see the posts and comments on GGW once the inevitable Dulles and Tysons area road capacity additions get started.
by ceefer66 on May 14, 2012 6:21 am • link • report
MWAA employees have stated in community meetings that the trip from downtown DC to Dulles Airport will take more than an hour. The Agency has shifted its argument in support of completion of the project from air travelers to airport workers. Essentially, MWAA is agreeing that Dulles Rail is all about attempting to change Tysons into an urban center over many years. Tysons is the dog, and IAD is the tail.
by tmtfairfax on May 14, 2012 8:34 am • link • report
MWAA employees have stated in community meetings that the trip from downtown DC to Dulles Airport will take more than an hour.
Citations please? Metro's own page, taken from the EIS and the engineering documents, shows 52 minutes from IAD to Metro Center. If this is incorrect, please share another source. You'll also forgive my skepticism about a precise estimate (52 minutes) versus a vague one (more than an hour).
The Agency has shifted its argument in support of completion of the project from air travelers to airport workers.
Again, please show some evidence that this is actually a shift. We have lots of rail lines to airports - employees use them a great deal.
Essentially, MWAA is agreeing that Dulles Rail is all about attempting to change Tysons into an urban center over many years.
Sure it is. No one ever said otherwise. That doesn't mean IAD isn't a destination worth serving, not to mention the office corridor along the Toll Road.
by Alex B. on May 14, 2012 9:16 am • link • report
Really? I get it for business, but not so much for personal travel. Let's pick a popular DC neighborhood; pretend you live somewhere around Cap Hill. Checking out the Washington Flyer site, they estimate $64 for a one-way to or from Dulles. Having made that ride several times, I'd say that 40 minutes would be making pretty good time, no? It is 30 miles, after all. If you get on at Eastern Market, you've got about 60 minutes on the silver line for $6. I dunno about you, but even if you don't tip the cab driver, $58 to save a half hour doesn't seem like a great deal to me. Anyone in Arlington or the DC core is going to get the best transit option to Dulles we've ever had, and it'll be a pretty good deal.
This is obviously mitigated somewhat if you have a family of four, all with suitcases and whatnot, but you'll also be incurring additional passenger and baggage fees on the cab, too.
by worthing on May 14, 2012 9:25 am • link • report
Source: McLean Citizens Association Transportation Committee meetings. MWAA and VDOT have been sending representatives to these monthly meetings since shortly after HOT Lanes and Dulles Rail construction began several years ago. MWAA has stated that, realistically, it will take the typical passenger a bit more than an hour to get to IAD from downtown D.C. and the line may be better used by airport workers. No study was presented to support this view. Neither did MWAA defined precise start and finish points.
IMO, it makes no sense not to build rail to IAD. We are too far down that path to stop.
by tmtfairfax on May 14, 2012 9:25 am • link • report
Ok, so it's not a precise estimate at all, nor does it contradict the travel time of 52 minutes from Metro Center to Dulles.
I would note, however, that Metro Center is in downtown DC.
by Alex B. on May 14, 2012 9:32 am • link • report
the originally-planned simple, direct rail link to Dulles (which I supported BTW) was hijacked by the "let's turn Tysons Corner into a urban
utopia so we can pretend we're like Europe" interests
Thanks for proving to us all that this is *not* about mindless, knee-jerk culture war, but really a dry, analysis of the facts and figures.
LOL.
by oboe on May 14, 2012 11:11 am • link • report
Nor do I have a problem using it. I just note that "it'll take more than an hour to get to Dulles" is not hyperbole, but rather the most likely scenario for most DC residents. No one catching a flight assumes the bare minimum of transit time for a trip. In time cost to the user, it will certainly be more than a hour. If the trip takes only 52 minutes, that will just mean more time hanging out at the airport.
Incidentally, does the 52 minute standard include the 5 minute walk from the platform to check in?
by Tim Krepp on May 14, 2012 11:25 am • link • report
Or it's an example of the misapplication of that metric.
The purpose of the 52 minute travel time statement isn't to illustrate what your use would be like. It's to provide an apples to apples comparison with other Metro travel times and to evaluate other alternatives.
On the usefulness of that metric to you as an individual, your mileage may vary - which is exactly the problem that the platform to platform time measurement seeks to avoid.
Of course few people catch flights by budgeting the bare minimum travel time - but that's not the point of the metric. Do you really need to tell people they ought to budget some extra time to wait for a train, to get to a station? I don't think so.
by Alex B. on May 14, 2012 11:39 am • link • report
by goldfish on May 14, 2012 11:41 am • link • report
Driving times are usually measured from the time you turn the ignition on to when you turn it off. Transit times from when you walk out the door to when you walk in the door. Parking & getting out of the garage can take a lot of time.
by Ben Ross on May 14, 2012 11:55 am • link • report
The apple-apple comparison is the door-to-door time...
For you, sure. The point is that you can't extrapolate your door to door time to have any relevance to my door to door time. Your experience isn't applicable to anyone else. Your apples are someone else's mangos.
The one common element our door to door times would have, however, is that Metro Center to IAD will take 52 minutes. That experience is applicable to everyone who uses the train. That's my point.
by Alex B. on May 14, 2012 11:55 am • link • report
by Neil Flanagan on May 14, 2012 12:05 pm • link • report
And you'll notice I wrote "cab", which is the alternative that a business traveler staying at a downtown hotel would is considering. (Actually no, if I were on an expense account staying at a downtown hotel, I would take a cab and the Metro alternative would never enter my mind.) It takes about 20 minutes longer if you are parking in the economy lot to catch the shuttle. Note that this will still be quicker that taking the Metro.
I don't see the point about quibbling over this -- the figure of merit, "door-to-door, about twice as long as taking a cab", stands.
by goldfish on May 14, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report
Precision and accuracy are quite different.
by Tim Krepp on May 14, 2012 12:36 pm • link • report
A few things here:
1) ARC was indeed a single tunnel. However, it would have been used by every single one of NJT's rail lines, and would have offered service into NYC from several lines that currently do not have a connection, because there's literally no capacity in the existing tunnels. The demand's already there.
Amtrak would also like to route (much) more service through NYC, and I'd have to imagine that they'd also love to be freed from the loading-gauge restrictions imposed by the existing tunnels.
The existing Hudson River tunnel is likely the busiest segment of 2-track railroad in the world. Adding more tracks should be a no-brainer, regardless of the cost; I seriously can't believe that we're having this discussion.
2) Amtrak's planning their own project because ARC got cancelled. I don't believe that the Gateway Project was on the books until ARC appeared to be threatened.
3) ARC was a bad project. Wait, what? Because of the loud anti-transit voices, there was little room to critique the fact that it missed many opportunities to integrate with Amtrak's services or mesh well with existing infrastructure at NYP, all for the purpose of shaving a few percent off of the huge project's cost.
Amtrak's proposal is better in almost every respect. NJT runs a great railroad, but ARC's design was a major head-scratcher. It's bad that there are no shovels in the ground right now, as limited transit capacity is hurting NY and NJ's economy, but it's good that we're not going to stick ourselves with a bad design permanently.
by andrew on May 14, 2012 12:49 pm • link • report
The Dulles rail link is not meant to serve those people. It never has been. Yes it will probably take "twice as long" as the $70 cab ride (don't forget about the tip!) I think that a $50+ trade for 30-40 minutes of their time is a tradeoff a lot of people are going to make. Certainly the rail like will make Dulles a more viable option for a lot of people who live in the city.
Someone also pointed out the problem with most auto-transit time comparisons. Transit travel time is the time between when you look at the clock and decide to get ready and walk out the door and when you sit down at your desk and look at the clock again. "Driving time" is when you look at the dashboard clock when you turn the car on, and when you look at the clock before you turn the car off. Travel times may not be equal but they are often closer than we think.
by MLD on May 14, 2012 12:50 pm • link • report
by goldfish on May 14, 2012 1:47 pm • link • report
But if I were, say, heading to IAD from my office in Tysons or Reston next to a Silver Line station, I might very well take Metro instead. Indeed I often take Metro to Union Station when I'm heading somewhere on the Acela.
Even if my employer is paying, the cost of a cab to me is not zero; I have to hold on to the receipt, put it in my expense report, deal with DC cabdrivers, etc. And there's always the risk of traffic. (Sure Metro gets messed up too, but you can always leave the station and catch a cab instead.)
by Phil on May 14, 2012 2:16 pm • link • report
Amtrak has no plans for using larger cars and neither Gateway, nor ARC back when it still did include a connection to Penn, will change that. The simple reason is that they still can't get any larger cars to Queens & Sunnyside yard for servicing. I'm also not sure if there is enough clearance actually at the station for taller cars. The cars themselves would probably fit under the station, the question is can the catenary be raised any further to permit the safe operation of a taller car without arcing.
Next, right now IIRC, Amtrak can handle 26 trains per hour per tunnel, although of course one is always inbound and the other outbound. They could probably up that count a bit more, if only they could move trains faster across the ladder tracks leading to each platform.
A redesign to that interlocking is coming that will help things a bit, but still future growth on Amtrak and the NJT lines that currently do have access to Penn, will quickly eat that up. So that still leaves the need for those other lines that you've mentioned, plus still more growth. Which is what ARC would have addressed, and now hopefully Gateway and the Block 780 project will address that need.
Next, Gateway has been around for a while and it was even under discussion while NJ was planning and even breaking ground for ARC. It however was more of a gleam in people's eyes and a project that was far down the road. It took on a sense of urgency when ARC went down in flames.
Finally, ARC wasn't a great project, especially after NJT got into a hissy fit with Amtrak and cut the link to Penn claiming that their trains couldn't make the climb. But still ARC would have solved a lot of problems. And some of the more optimistic projections for future growth would indicate that they might well need both Gateway & ARC 30 years down the road.
by AlanB on May 15, 2012 12:51 am • link • report
Now it really is going take more than 52 minutes.
by Who Dat? on May 15, 2012 6:53 am • link • report
by Va Guy on May 15, 2012 10:17 am • link • report
It is a harmful ideology that when the government collects less tax money, it should spend less tax money? Really? Many or most states legally have to balance their budgets, period, they are simply not allowed to have deficits at all. So "cutting deficits" is not an ideology. "Eliminating deficits" is a legal obligation binding on the state.
by Brian White on May 15, 2012 10:19 am • link • report
first, SOME of us are both protransit AND pro organized labor (obviously not all protransit people are) So we care about both (and might not share your categorization of the preference as a "payoff")
Second, its not clear that it the project labor agreement is a net negative for the project, given the claimed quality issues of union vs non union subcontractors, and the accumulated project experience of the existing union subcontractors. Its hard to see how legislators in Richmond are wiser about how to go about running a project than the folks actually running it.
Thirdly, theres already a compromise - the edge to contractors using a PLA in the bid process is relatively small.
Fourth, its hard to see evidence that the current political leadership in Richmond is particularly pro transit on anything else - we have to see this in context of an admin pushing for an outer beltway, riding roughshod over plans for urbanizing Tysons, and punishing Arlington for its planning choices.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 15, 2012 10:25 am • link • report
This comment seems to me to reveal an innate disrespect for highly skilled/skilled blue collar workers/people who work with their hands instead of pushing papers around on a desk.
by Tina on May 15, 2012 5:48 pm • link • report
There is NO SUCH THING as a bad transit project. Yes Metro is inept. Do we trust them to run an efficient system? Absolutely not. But do we need as many lines to as many places as possible? Absolutely. Many thoughts on comments:
1. Alan B. is absolutely right that ARC was a horrible self-serving idea of NJ Transit (not a surprise if you've ever dealt with them), and a joint effort with Amtrak would have been much more efficient to all. Gateway will do a much better job and Amtrak is probably the best we have in this country in terms of doing a lot with a little. The Northeast Corridor (present and future) is a beacon of what transit infrastructure should be in this country, and would be if we could simply find it in our hearts to budget for it.
2. If Airport Rail Access isn't useful, why has PATH so seriously considered extending to Newark Int'l Airport for the better part of a decade?
3. To anyone who doesn't think Reston or Herndon can not be walkable urbanized areas, think again. Reston Town Center is already in the same category as Ballston and Clarendon in terms of design. All it needs now is the rail line to complete the vision. The strategy is the same for Tyson's and Eisenhower Ave. is another example of this being employed further from the city center.
4. Sprawl is bad. You should understand this by now with the re-gentrification of urban areas. Saving time is the better alternative to saving money. The ideal and efficient world, like it or not, is car-free for routine daily activities.
5. What all of the "anti-transit" ideologist wannabes never admit is that toll-free roads are 100% subsidized. Transit is always a better option if for no other reason than the fact that a portion of operating costs are recovered by the farebox.
6. Austerity is only useful when you scale back true wasteful spending. Spending that, admittedly to both sides of the aisle, will spur economic growth should not be what is getting pushed back.
7. "let's turn Tysons Corner into a urban
utopia so we can pretend we're like Europe" interests and morphed into the "spur economic growth" (the same thing that's called "sprawl" and "unsustainable" when it's caused by a road)" -- is the most ridiculous comment of the bunch. There is a considerable difference between sprawl (aka the inefficient land use that sees a barely million people from 60 radial miles converging on a couple 2 lane highways) and creating a secondary but focused urban center. Tyson's might as well become DC 2 / DC West, and then Reston Town Center is it's Clarendon. Peak of efficiency. If you don't believe me, there's a 20-year plan already in progress to utilize Newark, NJ's 2 NJ Transit Rail Stations as hubs for radial urban gentrification and development and make it yet another successful city in the New York metropolis, just like Jersey City and Hudson County overall. Hudson Co. has gone a little overboard and not planned for greenspace, but the beauty of NoVA is that it already has planned for greenspace and still has plenty of area for great development. This area with the right vision and plan could become the greatest urban hub this country has ever known by learning from the sometimes-limited mistakes of all those before it and leaving politics out.
by Mike D. on May 16, 2012 1:02 am • link • report
-----
That agrument is laughable on it's face.
Name ONE, just ONE, transit project that pays for another mode of transportation.
Toll revenue from roads is extracted to pay for transit as a matter of course. See: Silver Line.
by ceefer66 on May 16, 2012 8:14 am • link • report
Name ONE, just ONE, transit project that pays for another mode of transportation."
That's not what that point said. Name ONE non-toll road project that brings in any revenue to cover its operating costs. That's right, roads are a 100% subsidized operation, yet another reason to get people out of cars.
And toll revenue is directly funding the Silver Line because of the unique road-operation scheme of MWAA control and the states' subsequent unwillingness to fully fund a needed infrastructure project due the politics of system revenues never touching their pockets.
by Mike D. on May 16, 2012 8:24 am • link • report
by Jack Love on May 16, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report
-----
Let's get one thing straight.
The Silver Line is NOT "needed infrastructure". It won't relieve the notorious traffic congestion in Tysons and the Dulles Corridor and it won't replace the Access Road as the primary route to the Dulles Airport.
Do some research. Even the most enthusiastic projections from the the most ardent suporters predict an average of only 16,000 riders/workday. That will hardly make a dent in the traffic.
The Silver Line is exactly what its supporters say it is and mean it to be - a vanity project, and "economic engine' if you will that is part of a grander scheme to urbanize Tysons and cure the euro-envy of those who take trains from Heathrow and other eurpoean airpots to their destinations.
It's got nothing to do with any of the reasons that make rail rail transit "necessary. The Silver Line is a WANT, NOT a "need".
And it should be paid for by those who benefit from it the most - landownwers and affluent homeowners near the stations, the busineses and employers that locate there, the developers who will be building all that nice, unaffordable-to-most-people "transit-oriented development", and the relative handful of commuters and airport users who will ride the thing.
It should not be constructed by picking the pockets of Toll Road users who will see a negligable improvement in traffic congestion while the condition of the road THEY ALREADY PAID for continues to deteriorate. That's wrong.
by ceefer66 on May 16, 2012 6:05 pm • link • report
"What all of the "anti-transit" ideologist wannabes never admit is that toll-free roads are 100% subsidized. Transit is always a better option if for no other reason than the fact that a portion of operating costs are recovered by the farebox.
----
Let's go back to this for a moment:
FYI, no one "subsidizes" road construction. It is paid for via property taxes, fuel taxes etc.
Tolls, among other sources funded for by road users, pay for maintenance (except in the case of the Dulles Toll Road - those tolls have been hijacked to pay for the Silver Line). Factor in the fact that road users pay the full cost of acquiring, insuring, and maintaining their vehicles - all while paying taxes and user fees for roads, PLUS the cost of financing transit and the agrument that "roads are 100% subsidized" begins to fall flat by comparison.
And even if you really believe that roads somehow get paid for out of the general taxes of all taxpayers, then those being "subsidized" aren't the relatively wealthy in the inner core of this region, but rather the poor. The poor in this region largely take the bus or drive. The majority of them don't live near rail and the majority aren't riding rail to the few jobs available to them. And believe it not, few of them will be riding the Silver Line to jobs at Dulles Airport, Tysons, or Reston/Herndon.
Without the kind of road access we have (such as it is considering most of the planned freeways in this region weren't built), the poor would be forced to pay more for lack of alternatives to driving. Honestly, where do you think someone making $10-$15/hour is going to find $10/day to ride the Silver Line to work?
And If you really think that all there is to the burbs are McMansions on 1-acre lots, then you really don't know suburbia very well. There's a reason we have the "sprawl" people like you like to sneer at and call "bad". People can get more for less by moving farther out. Without "sprawl", most people in this region could never even afford to even rent a decent place to live in a safe neighborhood, much less buy a home.
So, if any "subsidizing" of roads is occuring, it is a subsidization of transportatation for the less wealthy. And it is FAR LESS than 100%.
The wealthy can always buy what they want, where they want. And this region, they're buying in areas served by Metro rail, which according to WMATA's own numbers is only 30% paid for at the fare box. Check out their website if you think I'm wrong.
So before you go off half-cocked about roads being "100% subsidized" (which isn't true), take a momnet to thank those who are less fortunate than you because they're the ones covering 70% of the cost of your cheap train ride.
by ceefer66 on May 16, 2012 6:15 pm • link • report
One more thing:
I'm no " 'anti-transit' ideologist wannabe". I grew up riding the New York subway. Started riding by myself when I was 9. And I've riden many other system, here in the US and abroad.
I'm all for transit - when it serves it's purpose - providing an essential benefit for those who need it, especially those who have no alternative.
The problem I have with the Silver Line is that it is none of those things. The Silver Line is a boondoggle to benefit the wealthy and the affluent by boosting their property values. It is a vanity project for transit advocates, neo-urbanists and the self-described "visionary" politicians who pander to them.
Sure, supporters like to talk about supposed benefits with slogans and talking points like "spurring economic development" and "re-shaping the community", but any way you slice it it's what it is - a gift to the wealthy and affluent at others' expense. The slogans are nice lipstick, but it's still a pig.
The money could have been better spent extending the Orange Line to Centerville or Manassas or extending the Green and Yellow Lines south. But the "sprawl dwellers" out there don't have the money and influence of those who want to "re-shape Tysons into a walkable community", so I guess they can just rot out there in the "sprawl". To hear some folks tell it, they had no business moving out there in the first place. So, to heck with them.
by ceefer66 on May 16, 2012 6:36 pm • link • report
I do call that sprawl bad, not because of favoring any group, but because it is horribly inefficient. Do you think we can just spread the DC metro out south to Richmond and west to West Virginia so people can "get more for less?" Completely unsustainable. And there comes a point where people cease wanting to be too far away. I am sorry for the old generation who does not understand that the time value of living closer to city FAR OUTWEIGHS the cost impact of closer living. But clearly, as noted by en-masse gentrification and urban reclamation, the young do understand. Efficient urban planning comes with smart community greenspace planning so that everyone is happy with their "yard" instead of complaining later that they wish they had better thought it out.
Additionally, at daily Greenway volume of less than 20% that of the Dulles Toll Road (sub-50,000 daily tolls as of 2009. We can certainly assume that to be more but I would be unsurprised if it failed to exceed 20% of the approximate 300-330k daily DTR volume), I don't really feel sorry for the vast minority of people not electing to take the longer-term gamble on a further-distant property wildly spiking in value. As the DTR study further assumes toll paying will DECREASE slightly over time (mindboggling, but hey check their report!), that means the rail-car ratio will only increase. 5% is a fairly decent immediate audience capture. You will find many examples of transit systems whose ridership was expected to flounder have quickly experienced growth.
And, I'm no mega-wealthy Fairfax resident. I have a job so I'm doing decently for having just graduated college. But let's be honest here with ourselves here. Given some other toll rates on the East Coast and corresponding traffic volumes, no one's being ripped off by comparison by the DTR fares, not even when they double, and barely when they triple. Aren't all you whiners lucky you don't have a bridge crossing to pay for. I'd suggest that Loudoun should have had better foresight than to let their main artery road become a for-profit business from the get-go. I would argue that as the Silver Line stretches this distance, fares could be raised to Commuter Rail type of pricing. 27.5 miles on NJ Transit (ie. Metuchen-NY Penn Station) is $11 nowadays. Should Metro be that high? No because of the serious system deficiencies that hamper it's ability to provide quality service (Most notably the lack of track redundancy, easily one of the greatest oversights in modern infrastructure history. Amazing that New York's system designers could build 4 tracks over 100 years ago, and the Metro can't even plan for 3.). But to have a Dulles-Metro Center fare be, say, $7-9 is far from unreasonable. Public Transit options right now are $6 + extended traffic time via 5A if you're lucky enough to be going to the immediate L'Enfant Plaza area, or $10 + Metro for Washington Flyer to WFC. Will people pay $7-9 for a 1-seat ride? I guarantee it.
To summarize, Inter-modal connections and car-less metros are the future. Affordable housing considerations then become a critical facet of urban planning. It is not euro-envy, but euro-necessity. We simply cannot afford a world where every individual is driving a 7-passenger SUV 30 miles to work daily. And this is from someone who considers global warming widely a myth.
by Mike D. on May 16, 2012 6:56 pm • link • report
Fuel taxes and other direct fees only cover 51% of the costs of our highways in this country. And in most states, no fuel taxes are used for local streets. Only a select few states share any fuel tax revenues with the locals.
http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/direct-expenditures/highways/funding/analysis/
Next, I'm sorry, but property taxes paying for local streets do constitute a subsidy. The fact that one owns a house doesn't mean that one must own a car. Even if one does own a car, but largely uses the Metro, then what they are paying via property taxes for the roads is way out of proportion to their use of the roads.
Turning to the poor, while they may well be using a bus, they too are still paying property taxes. Property taxes that provide far more benefit to the driver, that to a bus rider or subway rider.
Finally, one must consider that the buses are what hurts Metro the worst when it comes to fare box recovery. Subway riders cover 61.96% of their costs via the fare box. Bus riders only manage to cover 19.47% of their costs. Based upon data from the 2010 National Transit Database report.
Put another way, every time someone steps on the subway their average ride costs the taxpayers $1.04. Every time someone steps on a Metro Bus their average ride costs taxpayers $3.49 in subsidies, and that's on top of the subsidies to the roads & highways those buses are using.
So it's far better for the taxpayers to get people off a bus and onto the subway!
by AlanB on May 16, 2012 7:52 pm • link • report
"...Given some other toll rates on the East Coast and corresponding traffic volumes, no one's being ripped off by comparison by the DTR fares, not even when they double, and barely when they triple. Aren't all you whiners lucky you don't have a bridge crossing to pay for."
----
"Whiners"?
Let's look at the facts.
The most expensive toll rates on the East Coast are for the facilities that are used to fund transit - the Port Authority of NY-NJ facilities like the Lincoln tunnel and GW Bridge (among others), the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority facilities like the Verrazono Bridge and the Delaware Valley Port facilites like the Ben Franklin Bridge connecting Philadelphia and Camden. And now the Dulles Toll Road. I'm assuming you knew that. Am I right?
And if you think that doubling and tripling DTR tolls is some small thing no one should complain about, consider this:
Higher tolls DTR will cause many drivers to seek out alternate routes. The higher the tolls, the more traffic on secondary roads will increase. This will eventually lead to pressure to increase capacity on the secondary roads. It WILL happen. don't be surprised if Route 7 is ugraded to a freeway like they did with Route 28.
You think you have "sprawl" now? Wait until the development around the Loudon stations gets under way. Where do you think most of the workers in those new stores and offices will be living? Certainly not in the new "transit-oriented development" nearby. They won't be able to afford it. Where will they go? You guessed it - further out.
As for the rest of your anti-suburb, driver-hating, name-calling rant, I'll say this and then be quiet:
Bloggers and other road-haters love to complain that drivers never pay for the full cost of driving, going so far as to spread completely false nonsense that "drivers don't pay their share" and "roads are 100% subsidized".
bloggers also like to pontificate about how the suburban "lifestyle" is "unsustainable" while never defining what "unsustainable" means other than "something I disapprove of".
They do this at every opportunity while they ignore the BILLIONS collected every year specfically from drivers (many if not most of whom live in suburbs) specifically for use on other forms of transportation, especially rail-based mass transit.
Now perhaps if drivers weren't being bilked to pay for your tranportation AND rail transit users paid AT LEAST the same percentage of the cost of their ride that drivers pay to fund roads, you would have a valid argument.
Until then, fans of the Silver Line - the most expensive public infrastructure project currently underway in the US and the most ridiculously costly boondoggle since the Big Dig - should probably just say "thank you" to the Toll Road drivers and leave it at that.
I'm done. You want the last word? Have at it.
by ceefer66 on May 17, 2012 1:41 pm • link • report
The most expensive toll rates PER MILE.
by ceefer66 on May 17, 2012 1:42 pm • link • report
whenever I drive into (more often through) Manhattan on the Lincoln or Holland tunnel, Im very happy that PATH trains are subsidized, making my drive FAR easier than it would otherwise be. Does that make me anti-driver? Anti-car? Im not sure how it does. If PATH were shut down, do you think that would easily pay for another auto tunnel to Manhattan?
by AWalkerInTheCIty on May 17, 2012 1:48 pm • link • report
and if employment in loudoun happens on low density campuses, how is that different? Do you really think that in the absence of the silver line, Loudoun would ban employment growth?
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 17, 2012 1:53 pm • link • report
Yes, I'll grant you that some of toll revenues from those bridges that you mentioned does go to the transit agencies. However, it's really just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while the boat continues to sink.
In other words, everyone is subsidizing everyone else.
Here's your bottom line, as I established in my earlier post, we drivers pay 51% of the costs of our highways. We pay far less of our costs when we factor in the costs of the local streets and roads.
Train riders in 2010 covered 53.11% of their costs on average. Yes some systems are worse than others, some are better. Just like some states are better than the 51% and some are worse.
But the bottom line is that both are pretty close to equal.
It's the buses that pull down every transit agency with only a 26.75% fare box recovery.
Ps. while I know that you last post wasn't directed at me, I am a driver as well as a transit rider. And I'm not looking to cut the subsidies to the roads & highways; I simply want people to realize that drivers are getting similar percentages in subsidies to rail transit riders. In total dollars, we drivers are actually making out like bandits in the subsidy department. With State & Federal highway spending hovering around $200 Billion annually, that's a $100 Billion subsidy to drivers. That amount would run every transit agency in the US for about 2.5 years with capital expenses included.
by AlanB on May 17, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report
I would really like to know where you got the numbers re: train riders paying such a large share of the cost of their ride. Also, when you speak of train riders, do you mean all train riders or just mass transit?
I agree that we all subsidize each other to varying degrees. However, it sticks in my craw when I see nonsense that implies drivers are getting a free ride at the expense of non-drivers. And there's a LOT of that, right here on GGW. Even if that was true, there is still the fact that drivers pay the FULL cost of acquiring and maintaining their vehicles. The average person is getting a subsidy to buy and maintain a car.
Another fact is that no transit user's fares are being hijacked to fund roads. That is definitely not the case.
Transit advocates, especially rail transit advocates, are very good at demanding that others pay for their pet projects - and finding ways to make them do it - while they begrudge every penny spent on roads. The rail transit riders in the DC region are mostly among the most affluent people in the region. They live in some of the most expensive residential property here and many are quick to brag and crow about how access to transit and density increases their property values - while conveniently forgetting that the lion's share of the cost of the transit that's boosting their proprty value is being borne by others.
It's insulting for them to whine and howl that "driving is subsidized" and consistenly oppose and try to block every proposed expansion of road capacity simply by definition while they enjoy an artificially inexpensive, heavily-subsidized train ride at the expense of the very people they look down on for living in the "sprawl".
And calling people "anti-transit ideologues" and "whiners" for not liking it is beyond the pale.
by ceefer66 on May 17, 2012 3:26 pm • link • report
by ceefer66 on May 17, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report
That comes from the National Transit Database, which tracks all transit agencies in the US.
For 2010, latest data available, total operating expenses for all major forms of rail were $12.4673 Billion. Total revenues were $6.62 Billion. I didn't include cable cars, which is why I said "major".
Total operating expenses for buses was $18.3992 Billion; total revenues was $4.9225 Billion.
by AlanB on May 17, 2012 3:49 pm • link • report
---
Hardly, Walker. But the dense, heavily-concentrated areas around the stations will attract more outsiders and they have to live somewhere. And that "somewhere" will be further out.
Even if they come from nearby, many if not most will come by car, thereby increasing traffic - and pressure to increase road capacity.
Look, I'm not against the Metro line, but I've got a problem with the way it's being paid for, with the way it's been fast -tracked, and with the way those who are saying "let's take a closer look" are being being villified.
You and I both know that if the Silver Line was a road, we would still be "studying alternatives", "examining the environmental impact", and indulging "concerned citizens groups" of opponents with endless hearings. Not to mention the lawsuits. The decades it took to simply START the Intercounty Connector is a case in point.
But a $6 billion rail project of dubious benefit to the region as a whole and shaky financing should be built - and built quickly - just because some people with their own "ideology" want it?
by ceefer66 on May 17, 2012 3:59 pm • link • report
Even if they come from nearby, many if not most will come by car, thereby increasing traffic - and pressure to increase road capacity."
loudoun is already increasing capacity on rte 7 to accommodate the growth in employment in eastern loudoun, which hill happen silver line or no. IF it happens close to the stations instead that wont change the impact on Rte 7 - at most some minor changes to local streets right by the stations - more importanly the residences there will mean fewer people driving.
"You and I both know that if the Silver Line was a road, we would still be "studying alternatives", "examining the environmental impact", and indulging "concerned citizens groups" of opponents with endless hearings. "
we had all that, years ago before phase one broke ground.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 17, 2012 4:12 pm • link • report
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/national_profile/2010NationalProfile.pdf
As an aside, I think that one of the reasons that so many transit advocates bring up the roads is because so many drivers actually believe that they are fully paying for the roads, so they argue that they shouldn't have to subsidize transit riders. I know that's why I bring it up, but I always try to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that we take away subsidies to drivers, unless of course they remain unwilling to subsidize transit.
Next, I do agree that transit dollars aren't going to help pay for the roads. But riders of transit still do pay the other types of taxes, property, income, and sales that most often go into making up the funds that when combined with fuel taxes, do fund our roads & highways.
by AlanB on May 17, 2012 4:31 pm • link • report
we had all that, years ago before phase one broke ground.
----
No where near what was done with the ICC.
There's absolutely no comparison.
We didn't have well-organized groups like the Sierra Club demanding (and evntually paying for) additional studies because they didn't like the results of the latest study - like with the ICC.
We didn't have lawsuits and appeals in federal court - like with the ICC.
It wasn't a gubenatorial or Congressional election issue - like with the ICC.
No comparison. We both know that.
by ceefer66 on May 17, 2012 4:39 pm • link • report
ANyway, I dont see why Va has to immitate the political situation in Maryland for every project.
Basically it hasnt because most folks in NoVa INCLUDING drivers have thought this a good idea.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 17, 2012 4:44 pm • link • report
The North River Tunnels (Penn RRs tunnels under the Hudson) were completed in under 8 years (design to opening day) with equipment from 100 years ago. Why we are allowing our modern-era projects to take twice or more that time span is appalling. What do we need to environmentally study about the MEDIAN OF A HIGHWAY?!?!
by Mike D. on May 17, 2012 5:30 pm • link • report
by Mike D. on May 17, 2012 5:42 pm • link • report
Add a Comment