Comments on McDonnell admin. drops another transit funding bombshell - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by charlie

Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:23:13 EDT

This is actual agenda item from the CTB meeting.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/june/pre/Presentation_Agenda_Item_6_DRPT_Budget_SYIP_Update_-_FY_2013.pdf

I don't see anything about this issue on it.

In other news, it looks like the CTB approved another 150 milluon for dulles rail.

Comment by You Lie! as Joe Wilson would say

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:36:01 EDT

Please don't give me a link to the NY Times article about Chrisitie's lies, instead provide a link for all to see that the ARC tunnel was diverted to no where.

The costs for the ARC tunnel were taken from the toll payers that are only to go to fund the Garden State Parkway and Turnpike. The previous Governor (Corzine) stuck it to the commuters of these roads to build the tunnel to no where.

I can agree that Governor Christie is now taking the money from the toll payers, borrowing more money, and offering a tax cut. But please, do not tell me that the ARC tunnel was a good project by the time Christie stepped into office.

I urge you to read this http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/10/maybe_we_can_get_the_swiss_to.html

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] You could find real items to put up against Governor Christie, rather than the bias NY Times article which does not tell the true story.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:09:44 EDT

@ selxc to correct a misallocation of resources - how can you do that if you don't identify it?

Comment by selxic

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:27:29 EDT

What good does it do to put projects and regions against each other as Richmond and the governor are so often accused of doing and vilified for?

Comment by John Fuller

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:02:53 EDT

To PELHAM1861:

I beg to differ. I refer you to The Nixon Administration Public Broadcasting Papers, 1969-1974 [FOIA] reproduced at http://www.current.org/pbpb/nixon/ from which I quote Clay Whitehead (1971): "No matter how firm our control of CPB management, public television at the national level will always attract liberal and far-left producers, writers, and commentators. We cannot get the Congress to eliminate CPB, to reduce funds for public television, or to exclude CPB from public affairs programming. But we can reform the structure of public broadcasting to eliminate its worst features. There is, and has always been, a deep division within public broadcasting over the extent of national control versus local station control . . . We stand to gain substantially from an increase in the relative power of the local stations. They are generally less liberal, and more concerned with education than with controversial national affairs. Further, a decentralized system would have far less influence and be far less attractive to social activists. Therefore, we should immediately seek legislation to: (a) remove CPB from the business of networking; (b) make a drastic cut in CPB's budget; and (c) initiate direct Federal operating support for local stations on a matching basis."

Memoranda to this effect continued until 1974, just before Nixon resigned. Whitehead wrote President Nixon on April 2: "The object was to gain support for a restructuring of public broadcasting to decentralize funding and programming decisions by emphasizing the role of local stations. We have achieved such a consensus and have a bill awaiting OMB clearance, which provides for: [excerpts]

1. long-range funding over a five-year period without annual appropriations but with oversight;

3. a mandatory pass-through to the local stations of a substantial portion of the Federal match (at least 50 percent by FY 80), to decentralize program control and minimize the network character of the system

This reauthorization bill included not just the decentralization requirement but also something the industry had longed for: Multi-year funding. On July 16, the legislation was submitted to Congress.

The Administration's objective was not to spur "strong, imaginative and innovative PBS stations." That was a smoke screen. It was to stifle the "liberal evils" of national production.

Comment by Pelham1861

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:02:27 EDT

To JOHN FULLER:

At no time during the Nixon Administration (1969-1974) did the President's party control either House of Congress. The set-up you speak of was via Democrat led legislation. I think the outcome [deleted for violating the comment policy] is that local communities throughout America have strong, imaginative and innovative PBS stations. Isn't that a good outcome?

Comment by Pelham1861

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:57:04 EDT

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] At no time was the Silver Line threatened except here on GGW performing as 'chicken little'.

The Governor won that round and GGW censored the Fed study showing cost overuns, corruption and insider contracts on the Silver Line. Those of us who did take time to read it can be happy the Governor stood up for taxpayers and Virginia law.

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] Union workers are not owed any jobs...this is a Right to Work State...one of 24 I believe. Jobs are more plentiful in Right to Work states and joblessness lower. That's what a leader does...enforce the laws and create jobs.

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by John Fuller

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:20:15 EDT

Punitive, indeed. It's the old "divide and conquer" trick again. The Nixon Administration did the same to public television in its infancy because they detested "liberals" like Sander Vanocur. Instead of funding the PBS network directly, they switched the funding route so money was sent directly to the stations. Ever since, PBS has had to wrestle with stations for "dues" money to operate the network. And now McDonald's gang slyly attempts to disaggregate transportation funds the same way. Good luck getting all those recipients to agree on anything.

Comment by Stewart Schwartz (CSG)

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:48:01 EDT

Clarification on the 29 Bypass issue in Charlottesville (and yet another example of the problems with Sec of Transportation Connaughton's policies):

1) Charlottesville and Albemarle's proposed alternative -- Places29 -- is a comprehensive strategy that was analyzed and shown to work. It involved creating a local street network to get thousands of local trips off of the main stem of Route 29, a couple of urban/ped friendly grade separated interchanges where needed and development changes that reduced growth in traffic. It not only addresses the through traffic issue but also directly addresses the vast majority of traffic that is local.

2) The "bypass" in contrast will not fix or reduce the local congestion problem and also dumps all of its traffic back into an area with more strip sprawl and traffic lights.

3) For those worried about getting to Lynchburg, the bypass might only save a few minutes, which will be undermined by more traffic lights in Albemarle, Greene and Madison Counties.

4) Local groups have offered a more effective corridor-length solution that includes protecting the throughput of Route 29 by ending the chopping up of the highway for strip malls and local street networks in the towns along the corridor (offering an alternative to short trips on 29), and more.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:47:00 EDT

I don't spend time in taverns so I am no expert in how generic they are or are not, I will defer to you. I'm glad bicycle shops are springing up. I've eaten at the Salsa Roo and it was quite good, I'm not sure what was "fake" about it. Of course the idea is to spend the money to focus development where it will be denser and so reduce green house gas emissions and other impacts. I suppose an admin that, according to the WaPo will not use the words "sea level rise" when dealing with the problems facing Norfolk, is hardly going to care about that.

If they don't fund projects that will help NoVa's future, NoVa should consider that in 2013.

I continue to suspect that the majority of street car opponents DO believe that the street car will stimulate development, and they oppose it for precisely that reason.

Comment by Mary-Austin

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:56:45 EDT

walker,

Yes that is what I said. All of that stuff is coming anyway and is already here in many cases. The generic new taverns, the fake "taquerias" are already popping up despite the lack of a streetcar. They will continue to do so whether the thing is built or not.
My point is that Richmond may very well decide they don't want to spend $40-50 million on a trolley to make Arlington look cute. And a fund for heavy rail in Northern Virginia??? Not sure what you're talking about but the point of this article is McDonnell and conservatives don't like funding these types of projects and certainly not in Arlington.

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:37:30 EDT

Loach,

The dissonance is also that the Gov. claims is biggest focus is creating jobs, particularly in Science, Tech, Engineering, Math but the 29 bypass will do nothing to create STEM jobs. As opposed to the Silver Line which provides the infrastructure necessary to continue creating thousands of STEM jobs in Tysons.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:36:13 EDT

ms Austin

I thought you claimed that development would proceed just the same without the street car as with. In which case the same vibrant street life, including frozen yogurt, should appear.

I would pay more attention to the folks suggesting the street car would have no impact on development, were they not also as opposed to development as they are to the street car.

does anyone suppose that the state's contribution to the street car can be placed in a fund for heavy rail development in arlington or elsewhere in NoVa?

Comment by Mary-Austin

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:31:58 EDT

When he finds out the Columbia Pike Streetcar program is counting on 15% state funding he is going to pull that money faster than you can say vibrant froyo!
And good for him for once.

Comment by drumz

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:08:03 EDT

Loach,

Its not that the rural road projects don't have merits per se but it's rather.

1. It exposes a dissonance in the governor's rhetoric that "he's business minded and not afraid to make tough cuts" when it seems like the only projects that are in danger from the governor are the ones in northern va. rather than the ones he's fast-tracking in other areas.

2. ROI matters especially with transpo. dollars limited as they are. We have to ask which projects will have the greater impact and move more people. In that light, then yes the projects in the crowded areas (not just Northern Va. but Hampton roads as well).

Its northern Va. with the traffic problems so they should get first crack at traffic solutions.

Comment by movement

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:04:01 EDT

I am doubtful that adding overpasses on US29 in Charlottesville would work. This would just shift the bottlenecks around and make the other lights back up more. See Rt. 28 at its various phases of development as an example. I believe parallel roads would help by keeping local traffic away from 29 unless 29 itself must be crossed. We're seeing this in Alexandria and South Arlington now.

Comment by OctaviusIII

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:49:54 EDT

Goodness.

So a Republican administration wants to discourage efficiency in government by decentralizing a body created by local governments to save time and money. Here's hoping CTB does the right thing.

Comment by Loach

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:48:30 EDT

David, would you be in support of the two alternatives to congestion relief on 29 mentioned in that link you provided? Or are those just two more unnecessary rural road project that take money away from transit?

Comment by oboe

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:55:28 EDT

I guess McDonald is trying really hard to motivate VA Dems to come up with a reasonable candidate for governor this time.

Or engaging in a long-term plan to motivate businesses and residents to move to Maryland of DC.

Comment by movement

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:37:07 EDT

Gees. Between this and the UVA fiasco, the VA government has clearly gone rogue.

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:48:44 EDT

I guess McDonald is trying really hard to motivate VA Dems to come up with a reasonable candidate for governor this time.

Comment by David Alpert

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:44:44 EDT

Loach: Maybe because the people who live in that area say so? http://www.southernenvironment.org/cases/charlottesville_bypass

Comment by Loach

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:41:02 EDT

What makes a rural road project unnecessary? Is it just because somebody who lives in Washington says so?

Comment by worthing

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:24:12 EDT

This guy, I swear. I guess one consequence of single-term governors is that they don't have to care if what they propose is anything but power consolidation/red meat stuff. It's perfectly fine to take steps to cripple the economic engine of your state when you don't have to be accountable for it anymore 2 years later.