Wow @ Mayoral appointments. I think it would definitely be a good idea to go through all those boards and commissions to determine which are actually necessary. As it is, it seems as if DC has the same number of appointees as the federal government (excluding judges) .

by Adam L on Jul 5, 2012 9:09 am • link • report

Re: Silver Line Funding

Like it or not, special tax districts are the future of transit funding, just like tolls are the future of highway funding. Localities that don't get on board with special tax districts (like MD with its foolish belief that they will be able to pass a gas tax to fund the Purple Line) won't end up with transit. Transit advocates have to bite the bullet and concede on the less important issue of how transit is funded to win on the more important issue of getting more transit.

by Falls Church on Jul 5, 2012 9:22 am • link • report

Silver Line Funding

BTW: It is important to note that 5 republicans have been willing to buck their party in a major way and vote for a tax increase as well as transit.

by Jasper on Jul 5, 2012 9:26 am • link • report

@falls church

that will work for transit that is development focused, and where development is concentrated at identifiable spots.

Can we pay Va's share of an additional metro rail river crossing that way? With benefits that will accrue to both existing riders, new riders at existing stations, and to stations on new lines yet to be identified? I don't think we can give up on broader funding sources.

@jasper - both the GOP governor, and the LoCo chamber of commerce supported this.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 5, 2012 9:59 am • link • report

@ AWalkerInTheCity:the GOP governor, and the LoCo chamber of commerce supported this.

Shhh. Don't tell anyone.

Also, McDonald's support was flaky at best.

by Jasper on Jul 5, 2012 11:15 am • link • report

@AWITC

I don't know if we will be able to pay for another river crossing with special tax districts but its our best shot of making it happen. The special tax district would be funded by additional density at existing stations and new stations.
A new river crossing would be development focused. Development along the R-B corridor will grind to a halt once riders at those stations will have to wait for 2 or 3 cars to pass them by before finding a spot on a rush hour silver or orange train. Also, development at Tysons can only get so far with only 8-10 trains per hour during rush hour unless there are further riad improvements (as tmtfairfax will surely tell you). Basically, density is constrained by transportation capacity so adding another river crossing will allow for more development which can be taxed to pay for the infrastructure that they require. It's a win-win for land owners, jib seekers, and riders without relying on the support of peiple who will not see much direct venefits.

Special tax districts won't work for transit that is essentially welfare for poor people. But it will work for transit rhat is development focused which a river crossing, adding capacity along the commercial backbone of the DMV, would most certainly be.

The reason to not wait for general funds to pay for a river crossing is the urgency of the situation. If riders on the R-B corridor can't board overcrowded trains (which they can barely do today -- what will it be like when we add 10s of thousands of silver riders but have the same number of trains thru rosslyn?), it will cause economic problems that will be felt statewide. A special tax district, while not the best option for funding, is the quickest way to get agreement among key stakeholders.) And by quick I mean it could be agreed upon within 5-10 years.

by Falls Church on Jul 5, 2012 12:33 pm • link • report

Also, don't count on DC paying for any of a new river crossing. The reverse rush hour direction between DC and VA has plenty of spare capacity. Adding river crossing capacity is bad for DC as it will increase the attractiveness of living in R-B vs. DC. If riders in R-B can't board trains to get to their jobs in DC, condo development will completely stop and that demand will be relocated to where people can get to their jobs more easily -- namely DC. So any transit construction up to the high water mark of the river on the DC side, will have to be paid entirely by VA.

by Falls Church on Jul 5, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report

What is up with Loudoun County? I grew in a conservative suburb so there isn't much that shocks me, but jeez, some of the antics and opinions held by the board members in Loudoun read like something out of a Hawthorne novel.

by aaa on Jul 5, 2012 1:08 pm • link • report

So any transit construction up to the high water mark of the river on the DC side, will have to be paid entirely by VA.

Which would be pointless.

You can't just build a new tunnel at Rosslyn without that tunnel connecting to something. A new Metro river crossing means building an entirely new subway line though DC (such as separating the Orange and Blue lines). Building just the river crossing doesn't solve the problem at all, it just moves it someplace else.

Yes, it would be a regional project.

by Alex B. on Jul 5, 2012 1:11 pm • link • report

some transit is going to be shifting middle class people out of cars, even without changing the shape of the city. And providing mobility to the poor, the young, the elderly, and the handicapped is a useful social function of transit, as well.

And as TMT will also tell you, allocating the development benefits is a very complex thing, with a helluva lot of liars poker (do you honestly believe that homeowners in central LoCo won't see RE value benefits? But they managed to bluff their way out of paying for it - also see the complexity of arguments about Tysons).

I think we need to push for both.

as for the seperate blue line, I understand that DC will likely pay for the line in DC that connects, and that Va will have to pay for the crossing - my point was simply to focus on Va.

I am not convinced that you will convince the RBC landowners to support a TIF district, or the Tysons landowners to kick in more, or that you will get say the Centreville and Fair Oaks landowners to kick in for a crossing to enable an Orange line extension that is no guarantee. Nor will you get Old town to pay (though a crossing will effect development there) etc, etc.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 5, 2012 1:25 pm • link • report

You wouldn't have to change the tax rate necessarily, just increase the assessed value by removing some of the ridiculous height restrictions. 70 story building vs 35 story building = the exact same infrastructure cost (if already located in an area with a metro station, walkways, bikelanes, and HOT lane ramp) and adds double the assessed value (100% increase in tax revenue without a change to the rate).

by Tysons Engineer on Jul 5, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report

AWITC

I agree with you to some extent. You cpuld pay for Silver with TIFs and Tolls because you only had to fund the line and not additional river capacity. Silver gets to free ride on existing river crossing capacity. An orange extension would have to cover the cost of the extension plus part of the cost of the river crossing. Really the feds ought to cover the river crossing because it's very difficult to work out infrastructure financing that crosses state borders withoit federal help. Unfortunately, a lot of people have to be voted out of office before that will happen.

by Falls Church on Jul 5, 2012 2:42 pm • link • report

The article about MARC service in the Examiner is wrong. WV is losing service. Now they have 2 trains into DC in the morning, 3 back at night. Under the new schedule they will have 3 trains in, 3 trains out, and two train-bus connections at Brunswick. They will have more service. Yes, they lost their Super-Express train, but that just means that their trip is longer.

by Jamie on Jul 5, 2012 4:18 pm • link • report

Fairfax County has used a very small TIF program for Merrifield, where the affected landowners, area covered and items to be financed were small. The County required the landowners to agree to a back-up ad valorem tax that would kick in only in the event the TIF revenues were inadequate.
As you probably know, the County has refused to consider the use of a TIF for Tysons or any other area so far. The County believes TIF is appropriate only in blighted areas, which hardly defines Tysons and believes TIF-backed bonds would be too costly for Tysons. The landowners have made their arguments several times, but this issue appears to be dead.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 5, 2012 5:19 pm • link • report

@Jamie

West Virginia is losing service. They are arguably not losing net service, since, as you say, they are gaining a morning train and not losing an evening train. And they're also gaining a train-to-bus transfer in the afternoon.

However, they are definitely losing the last evening train. A train-to-bus transfer is not the same as train service. The last train for West Virginia will now leave Union Station almost an hour early (6:20 pm instead of 7:15 pm).

Plus, because of MARC's decision to end the last evening train in Brunswick instead of Martinsburg, no Brunswick Line train will leave Union Station between 5:40 pm and 6:20 pm -- a 40-minute service gap during evening commuting hours.

by MIriam on Jul 6, 2012 7:14 am • link • report

I find it fascinating how the union in SF was antagonistic to the changes, even after the carrot of additional fare checkers was given.

by h street landlord on Jul 6, 2012 7:43 am • link • report