Comments on Breakfast links: Neglect - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by MLD

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:43:02 EDT

Lots of rail systems report linked trips on their websites, so that might be what you see in news articles. Systems like the New York Subway only count people when they enter the system and have to use a formula to estimate the number of transfers. Here in DC they know entry and exit so they can pretty easily estimate the number of transfers.

Unlinked trips/boardings is the NTD (National Transit Database) standard - it's basically the only way to measure bus trips (since you can't easily say what's a transfer and what's not). Boardings also is a better measure of how much work the transit system is doing transporting people around - more boardings means more times vehicles have to stop to let people on, more time spent at stops, etc.

Comment by H Street Landlord

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:30:45 EDT

Thank you very much MLD for the information. Which method would you consider the industry standard?

Comment by MLD

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:27:28 EDT

Just so you know, H Street, those numbers are unlinked trips (boardings, so transfers add to the total) where as WMATA usually publishes a number that is linked trips, which is around 750K currently.

Comment by H Street Landlord

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:09:55 EDT

Correction to my last post: APTA has DC heavy rail at 979.6k for average workday ridership (for the first three months of this year).

http://apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2012-q1-ridership-APTA.pdf

Comment by H Street Landlord

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:24:53 EDT

Actually the 83.5k riders is only for phase 1 of the silver line. I bet it will be significantly higher than that though (over course we are talking 18 years out), as many of rail ridership estimates have been far too low (see Lynchburg rail line, Norfolk Tide line, lots more).

Also, isn't metro's daily ridership like 750k? So the phase one estimate is about 11% of today's total. Which seems more than reasonable given the huge current Tyson's population and all the development planned.

Comment by Alex B.

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:25:07 EDT

Ceefer,

Really? That's about 20% of today's total Metro ridership.

The entirety of the Silver Line represents about a 20% increase in track mileage for the system, you realize.

The current system is about 106 miles, the total Silver line length is 23 miles.

Comment by ceefer66

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 07:52:20 EDT

As a frequent DTR user, I'm inclined to agree with tmtfairfax's claim that DTR users will benefit very little if at all from the Silver Line.

Given the small amount of new transit riders it will attract (as opposed to those already using transit), the reduction in DTR congestion will be minimal, given the certain increase in traffic that will occur as a result of the densification of Tysons and Reston. The most DTR users can ever hope for is that thanks to the Silver Line, DTR congestion won't get much worse- and that's a stretch.

Any sifgnificant reduction in DTR congestion will be the result of increased tolls. As the tolls increase, DTR users will bail for alternate routes and cause congestion elsewhere, eventually leading to a demand to improve secondary roads. Look for an upgraded freeway-style Route 7 beyond the Toll Road within 5-7 years.

Comment by ceefer66

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 07:51:08 EDT

"you neglected to mention that the study found there would be 83.5k daily riders by 2030."
===

Really? That's about 20% of today's total Metro ridership. I know many transit advocates, especially those who push for rail, tend to exaggerate ridership projections, but 83,500 riders/day is quite a stretch.

Where did you get that number? Could you please post a link?

Comment by tmtfairfax

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 07:10:48 EDT

@ h street landlord

No one is arguing that there won't be ridership on the Silver Line, but the vast majority of the 83.5k riders are already taking transit. Some 18 years from now, we see 10,000 new riders -- i.e., people who were driving, but now take rail. We are spending an awful lot of money to get 10000 new transit riders.

As far as a Tysons downtown, it needs $2.3 B in new roads -- roads that will fail because of higher traffic volumes about the time they are completed, based on studies used by Fairfax County. The Fairfax County supervisors and planning commissioners understand this. Fairfax County DOT and VDOT understand this. Why can't GGW recognize this? No one is arguing not to add density at the four Tysons rail stations, but that density depends as much, if not more, on additional road construction. I guess ideology trumps.

Comment by h street landlord

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:30:05 EDT

@tmtfairfax - you neglected to mention that the study found there would be 83.5k daily riders by 2030. I dont know how that only encompasses 10k new transit risers, but whatever. Furthermore, I have to strongly disagree about circulators - you would not see a tysons downtown area the size of seattles, as is planned thanks to heavy rail, with that type of transit service.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:12:05 EDT

Fairfax County needs legislative authority to impose a parking tax within the TOD areas of Tysons. That would get funding from not only county residents who drive to Tysons, but also those from Loudoun, Maryland, the District and everywhere else. It would also encourage transit use.

DTR users simply don't benefit from the Silver Line, and by imposing high tolls to pay for much of the rail line, they are being screwed and receive economic incentives to drive other roads, which are overly crowded today. The big beneficiaries remain the landowners within the TOD areas who are seeing their maximum densities climb from 1.0s and 2.0s to 10.0 plus. The Reston and Herndon landowners near the tracks will also benefit. They should be paying more.

MWAA should also impose a $5 per ride surcharge on those rail passengers using the Dulles Airport station. Given the cost for parking, shuttles and cabs, a healthy surcharge is warranted.

The essential problems remains the Silver Line project was not and is not cost-justified. When the FTA tightened its standards, Senator John Warner got the project grandfathered under the old standards. But it still wasn't going to be funded. Both Democrats and Republicans lobbyied heavily and the Secretary of US DOT caved. Federal funding was granted, but it still does not change the economics.

IMO, we should have either built BRT in the median of the DTR or built the rail line in the median of the DTR without the Tysons diversion. The costs would have been considerably less and we would have operating transit today. Landowners could have built circulator systems into Tysons, Reston & Herndon.

Still looking for your citation to the DTR benefits.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCityq=

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:37:47 EDT

"It has proven to a far worse steward for the Silver Line.

Same question here."

VA:Drop the PLA, or lose Comm funding

MWAA:go hang, we can charge the DTR commuters

VA:MWAA is a poor steward, they are endangering the project to protect the PLA

Seems to me that if the Comm does not want the project endangered over the PLA, they have an easier path than trying to take it over from the MWAA.

Comment by cminus

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:37:42 EDT

Unlike a metro system -- which is actually in multiple jurisdicions -- the airports are soley in Virginia.

That argument might carry some weight for Dulles, but it's harder to justify with National. The airport may be solely in Virginia, but its takeoff and landing approaches and flight paths are almost entirely within DC airspace.

And this isn't just a matter of normal overflights, or a slippery slope giving every jurisdiction a say in every airport on the grounds that planes from that airport might fly over that jurisdiction. Takeoffs and landings at National are made over the Potomac, which is DC territory, and National's runways come within 50 feet of the river. National has three approaches -- Georgetown Reservoir to the northwest, Anacostia River to the northeast, and Potomac River to the south -- all of which overfly DC rather than Virginia.

As such, DC is actually more affected by any negative externalities from National Airport's operations than Virginia is. This isn't just a matter of noise (although I'm sure National would love to get more flight paths by overflying more of DC) but even extends to catastrophic failures. There have been two major airline crashes "at National" -- Eastern 537 while landing, Air Florida 90 on takeoff -- and both times the wreckage came down in DC territory, putting DC rather than Virginia on the hook for first response and repairing the collateral damage. (Air Florida 90 struck a bridge before landing in the Potomac; most of Eastern 537 also went into the Potomac, but some debris landed on the DC shore, although it did no real damage.)

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:34:47 EDT

"that issues around the financing and design of the Silver Line should be made entirely by VA (at various levels of govt) and "

seeing as silver line phase one is less than 18 months from ribbon cutting (?) it seems like the horse is out of the barn on that. If the Comm wants more input, they can probably get it by putting a large sum of money. Really large. AFAICT Fairfax has had considerable input.

But Fairfax isn't waging an ideological war on the PLA, or trying to change the MWAA management structure - just impact things like the design of stations - so we don't hear as much about it.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:30:00 EDT

@tmt

thats for phase 1 so I'm not sure how its relevant to the current discussion, which is of phase 2. Secondly, FTA does not provide a source, so its not possible to analyze the assumptions implicit in it - whether with regard to TDM, urban layout, parking, etc. Thirdly, as the document is from 2010, its not new.

As for traffic relief on DTR, you will note the context here was a discussion of funding - DTR vs airport users. In both cases the redevelopment of Tysons is a given. If you do not take the redevelopment of Tysons as given, that raises other questions - but its hard for me to see how that indicates that airport users should pay for it.

Again, the case made by the robocallers is that Loudoun County residents WILL benefit from the existence of the silver line, but will get few incremental benefits from the two stations in Loudoun. Ergo they should not build the stations, but should free ride (so to speak) on the investment made by fairfax. If you of another way to ensure that LC contributes to a project that WILL benefit LC, I would be pleased to know what it is.

However if you wish to renew, for the thousandth time, your discussion of Tysons developers and Gerry Connolly, and the high end development estimates (which IIRC you are happy will not happen thanks to Ms Bulova's changes to Mr Connollys plan), you are of course free to do so. If we could tax those, we could easily pay for the additional transit lines that will likely be needed (notably dedicated transit lanes on Gallows Rd and some kind of improved transit through falls church 7 towards Baileys), and that will improve life in the county.

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:27:17 EDT

if you want to make the case that putting the DTR in MWAA's hands was a mistake, that's one thing

Ok, so let's stick to that one thing since that's the most relevant thing in relation to the Silver Line. I'll agree that the IG report wasn't really that damning, that MWAA hasn't done a bad job of managing the airports, and that they've done a decent job of bringing the the SL Phase I construction project close to being on time and on budget.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the DTR should be taken away from MWAA and given back to VA and that issues around the financing and design of the Silver Line should be made entirely by VA (at various levels of govt) and the Feds -- just like the Purple Line (and MD/Feds).

Comment by Alex B.

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:24:35 EDT

Charlie,

Now, I hate counterfactuals as much as the next guy, but the issue at hand is what sort of governance is best going forward. MWAA has shown itself to be a poor steward for air travel.

How so?

It has proven to a far worse steward for the Silver Line.

Same question here.

Going forward, progressive opinion should be to remove as much power from MWAA and devolve the aiports and DTR owernship to the more logical owner: Virginia. They have the most people and the most at stake for the future.

Your logic doesn't add up.

If you want to unwind the DTR from the airports, fine. the DTR and Silver line are and should be linked, however.

If you want to unwind the airports from MWAA, fine - but devolving both of them to VA doesn't make much sense. You could maybe make the case for IAD, but not for DCA. Even so, I'd still consider that case weak, since I don't see what MWAA has done badly with their core mission of airport operations.

When the feds built DCA and IAD, they were acting directly. They just happened to use a subdisicary called the district of Columbia. Moving towards home rule changed all that.

Sure, but it didn't change the core interests that resulted in the construction of the two airports in the first place, it just changed which body was in charge. The local DC interests are still just as concerned about air access now as they were then - if not more so. And the Federal interest hasn't changed at all - if anything, it's also stronger.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:13:21 EDT

@AlexB; you're evading the issue by bringing up colonial land grants and federal funding.

When the feds built DCA and IAD, they were acting directly. They just happened to use a subdisicary called the district of Columbia. Moving towards home rule changed all that.

Now, I hate counterfactuals as much as the next guy, but the issue at hand is what sort of governance is best going forward. MWAA has shown itself to be a poor steward for air travel. It has proven to a far worse steward for the Silver Line. Going forward, progressive opinion should be to remove as much power from MWAA and devolve the aiports and DTR owernship to the more logical owner: Virginia. They have the most people and the most at stake for the future.

I mean, you DC people can go ride a bike to NYC or something.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:12:53 EDT

@AWalkerInTheCity

10000 new transit riders by 2030. Source Federal Transit Administration 2009. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/NewStarts_Appendix_A_Jan_2010.pdf See page A-35.

Fairfax County's transportation studies are based on the GMU study, of which the landowners have pushed to model the aggressive growth.

Once the Silver Line is operative; Table 7's road and (non-rail) transit projects completed; the TOD areas are built with high-quality, mixed use development; and some of the strictest TDM measures in the country implemented, the road network, including the Beltway (expanded by one more lane on the Outer Loop between 7 & 66), the expanded DTR, and widened Routes 7 and 123 reach failure every workday evening. The County does not believe any additional road capacity could be constructed, such that every additional trip into and out of Tysons must be by transit. This is at the point where Tysons grows from today's 46 million Sq. Ft. to 84 MSF. County officials have said the additional transit must include two additional, but unspecified, rail lines.

I hope this additional information is useful. I'm still interested in your sources for the proposition that the rail line provides traffic relief on the DTR.

Comment by Alex B.

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:05:00 EDT

Charlie, if you want to make the case that putting the DTR in MWAA's hands was a mistake, that's one thing - however, it does not then follow that the governance for the airports isn't and shouldn't be regional. It is, and it should be. Hell, DCA is on land that had to be ceded by law from DC to VA, after all. You don't think the District has an interest in operations there?

As far as Federal investment in airports goes, there's a big difference between federal grants for infrastructure purposes that went to all states, and the federal government directly building airports, which is what happened with DCA and IAD. Those airports both predate home rule for DC, they were built by the Federal government acting as the local government for DC, and by extension taking an strong interest in the region.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:31:32 EDT

"he MWAA Board contains reps from DC, MD, and VA because the airports are (and always have been) regional assets."

Funny, I wasn't aware regional assets means shared ownership and control.

Unlike a metro system -- which is actually in multiple jurisdicions -- the airports are soley in Virginia. Ditto for the toll road, which is the most valuable asset and very cleary a Virginia property. Shared ownership for the ICC, anyone?

I think Alex's quote would work, if you put in the cavet that in the 1970s and 80s it was fashionable to think mutlijuridicitions compacts were going to work. Instead they proved to be sinecures and opaque.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:29:35 EDT

"But, the Feds build a lot of infrastructure and the last I checked, there aren't multi-jurisdictional authorities controlling I495, I95, etc. The portion that's in your state is yours to control/maintain (but still subject to Fed regulations/power)."

afaik the highways in our region were built under the same FHWA programs as in all other regions, however the airports were NOT done in the same manner as airports in the rest of the country.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:28:12 EDT

read the entire wolff letter from the IG. They suggest process improvements, however there is no evidence of significant issues impacting results - there are a few expensive travel costs - out of line with how govts operate, but not at all unusual in private industry (and the letter suggest travel costs overall are not out of line) There are lots of sole sourced contracts - again different from govt standards, but (AFAICT) not that unusual for private sector standards, and nothing in the IG report suggesting that this has impacted MWAA finances negatively.

Oddly the same GOP pols who complain that bureaucrats are, well, bureaucratic, complaing when the act like a business. AFAICT the results of the report have been taken out of context and sensationalized, as part of an effort to take over the MWAA.

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:22:22 EDT

Alex B -- thanks for the history info.

The MWAA Board contains reps from DC, MD, and VA because the airports are (and always have been) regional assets.

But why doesn't this particular argument also apply to BWI. Isn't it a regional asset?

There's another argument to be made that because the Feds built the airports, then VA shouldn't have sole local control over them. But, the Feds build a lot of infrastructure and the last I checked, there aren't multi-jurisdictional authorities controlling I495, I95, etc. The portion that's in your state is yours to control/maintain (but still subject to Fed regulations/power).

But, its not even so much about the airports. Its much more about the DTR. VA needs to take that back along with the Silver Line.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:17:25 EDT

I was asking for a link for this

"Further, the County has been presented by a new estimate that the Silver Line will have only 10,000 new transit riders by 2030. "

as for the pdf, using conservative estimates of mode share (by comparing to other metro station TODs that will not have the same type of development as Tysons) they indicate a need (though they dont provide specific numbers) for the lanes you indicate - under the GMU "high" case, and assuming a large share of office use (leaning towards more residential would offset that) They also add in at the end the need for additional transit options - the basic analysis seems to indicate no transit improvements beyond the silver line.

Comment by MLD

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:16:43 EDT

Let me ask you this, how would all the people riding the Silver Line get to where they were going without either a) the Silver Line, or b) the DTR?

Clearly the answer is that Tysons and Loudoun county weren't going to grow at all and would remain in their exact current states in perpetuity if we didn't build the Silver Line.

Comment by Alex B.

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:09:27 EDT

I'd like to know what the history here is that caused IAD/DCA to be under multi-jursidictional control while BWI is entirely MD's.

The Federal Government built both DCA and IAD. When the Feds decided they wanted out of the day to day management of those two airports (then handled by the FAA). MWAA was created to manage operations, but the Federal government retains ownership of DCA and IAD with a long term ground lease to MWAA.

The MWAA Board contains reps from DC, MD, and VA because the airports are (and always have been) regional assets.

BWI was not built by the feds at all, it was an old airfield turned into an airport by the City of Baltimore. Baltimore City turned over jurisdiction to the State back in the 70s, I believe.

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:07:03 EDT

@ AWalker

"Dulles Toll road users WILL benefit, both directly (from congestion relief)" Source? Link?

Table 6-2.2 of the December 2004 EIS available on DullesMetro.com

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning/tysons_docs/transportationanalysis.pdf

The 527 TIA can be found at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/tysons/stats/

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:06:41 EDT

AWITC,

I love your vision of multi-jurisdictional cooperation. As someone raised in MD, living in VA, working in DC, and owning property in all three jurisdictions, I'd love to see that happen. I'd also love to see peace in the Middle East.

However, the reality is that none of that is happening anytime soon and until it does, each jurisdiction needs to look out for itself. VA naively thought they could bring all jurisdictions together to sing Kumbaya at MWAA. Instead, they're getting their head handed to them, so its time to wisen up.

As for other things MWAA is doing wrong, I'd point you to the inspector general's report:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/concerns-after-inspector-general-report-on-metropolitan-washington-airports-authority/2012/05/15/gIQA5QLHTU_blog.html

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:58:38 EDT

The Silver Line won't improve DTR traffic. It will prevent it from being worse than it would be otherwise. Let me ask you this, how would all the people riding the Silver Line get to where they were going without either a) the Silver Line, or b) the DTR? Granted the Silver Line users are additional demand over and above what we have today but the reality is that if the riders didn't use the Silver Line, they'd be driving the DTR.

Of course, you could argue that we should neither have the Silver Line nor the jobs in Tysons that the Silver Line makes possible. There's no right answer here, its a value judgement. However, that goes against VA's longstanding core value of creating jobs and being business friendly.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:58:20 EDT

" Risk Silver Line Phase II over their insistence that the Dulles station be underground; 2) Risk the project over the PLA issue; 3) Come up with their portion of Silver Line financing solely through DTR tolls with no contribution whatsoever from airport users or airport access road drivers."

They dulles station question was resolved. I think the refusal to finance from airport users is reasonable. that leaves the PLA discussion.

"I'd like to know what the history here is that caused IAD/DCA to be under multi-jursidictional control while BWI is entirely MD's"

I guess because that was considered Baltimore's airport more than Washingtons, despite the name.

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:53:47 EDT

I do not see what they ahve done on the Silver Line that is not in Va's interests

1) Risk Silver Line Phase II over their insistence that the Dulles station be underground; 2) Risk the project over the PLA issue; 3) Come up with their portion of Silver Line financing solely through DTR tolls with no contribution whatsoever from airport users or airport access road drivers.

As for the airports, I think that was a legacy of the airports being for the entire region, and being financed (with federal funds?) as the airports for the national capital.

I'd like to know what the history here is that caused IAD/DCA to be under multi-jursidictional control while BWI is entirely MD's.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:43:35 EDT

BTW, i keep hearing LC silver line opponents suggesting that few will take DTR under the proposed tolls, and that the silver line financing is therefore at risk. I am not sure how that jives with the additional 3 to 5 lanes needed.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:40:01 EDT

"In fact, the December 2004 EIS and newer traffic studies used by Fairfax County in its 527 Transportation Impact Analysis show just the opposite. The additional growth from Tysons will more than negate any reductions in traffic volumes on the DTR."

sigh - and that new development in Tysons won't increase residential property values in Loudoun County?

"Fairfax County has estimated the DTR may need to be widened by as many as three-to-five lanes to handle added motor vehicle traffic from an urban Tysons."

We've been over that - many folks do not find those estimates credible.

"Further, the County has been presented by a new estimate that the Silver Line will have only 10,000 new transit riders by 2030. The rest of the passenger load are already taking some other form of transit. "

source? link?

Comment by tmtfairfax

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:35:31 EDT

@AWalkerInTheCity

There is no evidence that suggests, much less demonstrates, the Silver Line's operation will improve traffic congestion on the Dulles Toll Road. In fact, the December 2004 EIS and newer traffic studies used by Fairfax County in its 527 Transportation Impact Analysis show just the opposite. The additional growth from Tysons will more than negate any reductions in traffic volumes on the DTR.
Fairfax County has estimated the DTR may need to be widened by as many as three-to-five lanes to handle added motor vehicle traffic from an urban Tysons. Further, the County has been presented by a new estimate that the Silver Line will have only 10,000 new transit riders by 2030. The rest of the passenger load are already taking some other form of transit. There simply are no real benefits for the users of the Dulles Toll Road. They have been sacrificed for Bechtel and the landowners. Falls Church is right on point -- the real beneficiaries are the Tysons landowners, who have capped their liability to only $425 million. The man who made all this work is none other than Gerry Connolly.

Comment by Gray

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:42:48 EDT

@charlie: Sure, that makes perfect sense. And then four years from now, we can abolish VDOT's transit division and turn the Silver Line over to an entirely new authority!

Comment by charlie

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:26:25 EDT

@Gray; let me be clear. I'd like to see the MWAA abolished and the airports and toll road given to Virginia.

@WalkerITC; I'm sure McDonnel would be up for that -- save the taxing authority.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:21:42 EDT

MWAA is bringing in phase one on time, and only about 10% over budget. They have navigated some very difficult issues. They may not have gotten enough from the Tysons developers, but wasn't that more Fairfax county's job to negotiate? Other than having a PLA, which seems justifiable to me, and AFAICT is not an issue for most of my fellow citizens in Fairfax (though of course it pisses off the tea partiers in the Va GOP) I do not see what they ahve done on the Silver Line that is not in Va's interests. As for the airports, I think that was a legacy of the airports being for the entire region, and being financed (with federal funds?) as the airports for the national capital.

The best answer would be an elected regional (NoVa-DC-Md suburbs) transportation body to fund WMATA, prioritize transport projects (MWCOG but with teeth), and to run the airports. Is Gov McDonnel up for supporting that?

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:11:13 EDT

And why should it be turned over to VA? VA turned it over to MWAA in the first place!

Because MWAA has been doing a lousy job representing VA's interests. Not surprising considering that MWAA is majority run by MD and DC. Yes, it was a mistake to hand over the DTR and the airports in the first place (which is why the Silver Line had to be handed to MWAA since the financing is 50% DTR tolls). But, it's time to reverse that mistake and hold MWAA accountable for representing VA interests, take away MWAA's responsibilities, and/or continue to stack the MWAA Board by adding more VA representatives (which dilutes MD/DC influence).

Blaming VA for handing assets over to the MWAA in the first place is like blaming people for investing their money with Bernie Madoff. Yes, that was a mistake but it doesn't make Madoff any less culpable. Also, just because VA gave MWAA a job to do doesn't mean VA shouldn't fire them if they don't do the job the way we want it done.

Comment by MLD

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:55:36 EDT

As Gray said, your comment that the Silver Line project "should be turned over to Virginia" is laughable given that VDOT gave the project and the toll road to MWAA less than 4 years ago so MWAA would be on the hook for raising the money to build it rather than elected officials.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:50:45 EDT

of course its not illegal - Va law says va employers cannot require agency contracts, AFAICT it does not say someone cannot employ a contractor (not located in Va) who is a union shop. Or give preference to them.

Thats why the comm is NOT suing the MWAA under va law, but is instead A. cutting off project funds B. using their allies in the press to run an ongoing negative campaign against MWAA (does VDOT do the one minute hate?)

And of course they dont want the project back from MWAA, they want the Comm to take over the MWAA. Which may or may not be good policy, but the way they are going about it leaves a bad taste in some folks mouths.

Comment by Gray

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:45:36 EDT

@charlie: Once again, they used the language recommended by the VA Attorney General. Seems hard to blame that language on MWAA.

And why should it be turned over to VA? VA turned it over to MWAA in the first place!

Comment by charlie

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:34:45 EDT

@H Street Landlord; if it isn't a violation of Virginia law, it is because MWAA is a good oldfashioned quango. And really, the big picture is it should be turned over to Virginia.

Comment by H Street Landlord

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:10:41 EDT

Pelham - [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

"That was a question that the MWAA thought it had settled after the office of state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) advised Connaughton that project labor agreements did not violate Virginia law. The MWAA had adopted language suggested by the attorney general�s office."

What McDonnell is doing has nothing to do with the laws of Virginia.

Comment by Pelham1861

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:04:52 EDT

It's absurd GGW keeps bashing Governor McDonnel over what is a real issue to Virginia voters and law -- being a Right To Work state. Yet, GGW has yet to publish links to the Federal report issued more than 15 days ago blasting the overspending and management of the Silver Line project...along with kickbacks and lavish personal spending. GGW really cannot be for a Greater Washington when they censor BAD NEWS about this Silver Line boondoggle and keep blasting MdDonnel because they don't like his political party.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:16:34 EDT

@ceefer66, while there are some limits on MWAA to raise ticket fees to pay for a railroad, I don't think it would be impossible for them to find a way to spread the pain.

However, that is part of the plan. Let MWAA take over, jack DTR fares, and let the developers in Tysons off.

@Walker; I don't think there is an mystery on why McDonnel doesn't want to the labor agreements. And I find the evidence laid out in the post pretty weak. As the MWAA lawyers said, they mistook Connaughton editing grammar on their language as evidence that McDonnel was buying into the concept.

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:46:59 EDT

While DTR users will benefit and should pay their fair share toward the Silver Line, its the land owners near the stations that are not paying sufficiently for the tremendous gain they will receive. Unfortunately, its politically difficult to make those corporations pay their fair share because of...the pro-big business political system the Koch Bros have helped put in place.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:36:33 EDT

Most airline passengers will not benefit from Dulles Rail. Dulles Toll road users WILL benefit, both directly (from congestion relief) and indirectly, from property appreciation. In fact IIUC the Koch robocalls specifically state that Loudoun county folks will benefit from the Silver Line anyway, so why build the two stations. That only reinforces, for me, that using the DTR tolls to pay for the line is just, and necessary.

Comment by ceefer66

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:29:00 EDT

MWAA could very well raise the money it needs for the Silver on its own. All they need to do is impose a surcharge on airline tickets, parking, and car rentals.

Why must Dulles Tolls Road users be the only Silver Line cash cow?

Comment by oboe

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:18:42 EDT

and once again, we have a governor who is willing to hamstring a significant number of his constituents in order to fulfill some sort of ideological purity test.

Ever since Nixon, when Buchanan advised him to make common cause with the Southern racist, "this is a potential throw of the dice that could bring the media on our heads, and cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half."

It's not about governing; it's about emerging with 50% +1 and the levers of power.

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:17:03 EDT

The whole reason MWAA is managing this project is that no-one else stepped up to the plate to find the money and get the job done.

The problem is less that MWAA is managing the project and more than MWAA has serious governance issues. First and foremost is the fact that all of MWAA's oversight is for things in VA and when they raise tolls to finance the Silver Line, its for a road in VA, yet MWAA is majority run by representatives appointed by MD and DC. That makes about as much sense as putting Virginians in charge of BWI and the ICC.

Comment by H Street Landlord

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:04:09 EDT

Well said @AWITC and John Flack.

On another note, jump in mass transit use first quarter this year (on top of a large one for the same time period last year):

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/04/news/economy/mass-transit-gas-prices/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

good news!

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:03:26 EDT

Connaughton was negotiating with MWAA, but never signed off. Before he did, McDonnel responded because of political pressure and said no money if a labor deal. I don't see much fire there.

As someone who thinks the MWAA needs to sacrifice the PLA to get this project moving forward, I'd still say that the McDonnell administration's handling of this has been slimy. McDonnell needs to put his stated #1 goal of creating jobs for Virginians ahead of his desire to be Romney's pick for VP or getting on the good side of the tea party. Clearly, his administration found the concept of a PLA as acceptable and their change in stance has at the very least delayed job creation and possibly put the whole Silver Line job creating machine in jeopardy.

That said, MWAA needs to realize that McDonnell has the upper hand in negotiating power, swallow their pride, and do what it takes to the project moving forward. NOVA stands to lose 100 times more by not having Silver Line Phase II than they stand to gain by having a PLA. McDonnell comes out a winner in either case, so he has all the negotiating power.

Comment by John Flack

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:44:16 EDT

If Virginia doesn't want to pay for Metro all the way to Dulles, then FINE. Let's finish Phase I and be done. But I'd better not hear any complaining about traffic in that corner of the State, or complaining about losing business in the Dulles corridor to the I-270 corridor, or the BWI neighborhood. The whole reason MWAA is managing this project is that no-one else stepped up to the plate to find the money and get the job done.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:18:30 EDT

'Before he did, McDonnel responded because of political pressure and said no money if a labor deal. I don't see much fire there.'

the fire is that McDonnel previously considered a PLA acceptable, but wanted to shape the nature of the PLA. His opposition to ANY PLA is not the result of his OWN ideological position, but is folding to the tea party element in the Va GOP. This casts a different light on the Va political dynamic. It also suggests that to those in the national GOP seeing McDonnel as a potential moderate VP candidate, they need to consider his reluctance to stand up to tea party pressure.

Comment by Gray

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:08:36 EDT

@charlie: Good point! Why should VA give the amount of money they promised, which is a tiny fraction of what it costs to build this new line entirely within VA? The problem obviously lies with the entity to which VA handed the responsibility for the line.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:56:41 EDT

umm, the summary of the post article is way off.

Connaughton was negotiating with MWAA, but never signed off. Before he did, McDonnel responded because of political pressure and said no money if a labor deal. I don't see much fire there.

What I do so is a one sided slant and release of emails.

MWAA is the problem here, not the Governor. If they wanted to build it, they could have tapped into their own money.

Comment by Sand Box John

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:53:49 EDT

Metro blocked, locked emergency exits, inspection reports show
Kytja Weir
Washington Examiner
06 03 2012 2000 EDT

Comment by Gray

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:37:36 EDT

The link to the Examiner piece on emergency exits doesn't work. There's an extra %20 that needs to be removed to make a working link.

Comment by selxic

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:57:12 EDT

Everything still points to DC United paying for the stadium with new members of their ownership group while DC would be providing infrastructure and potentially land, Amber.

I thought the debatable portion of that was if Nats Park has been a bad deal.

Comment by drumz

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:52:48 EDT

and once again, we have a governor who is willing to hamstring a significant number of his constituents in order to fulfill some sort of ideological purity test.

Comment by Amber

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:34:36 EDT

So, if the city pays for the soccer stadium, it will take 23 years for the city to see a return on its investment. Do we have other options?