The problem with the gas tax is people -- meaning Republicans -- don't want to raise it. In almost every state it should be a dollar higher.

given that dynamic, how is replacing the gas tax with a VMT every going to be feasible?

And yes, I know, electric cars will one day make the gas tax obsolete. One day.

by charlie on Aug 7, 2012 8:39 am • link • report

@ VMT Tax

Wow - seems like a really expensive way to determine revenues. Have they looked into reading odometers during the registration process? I'd think the cost of a GPS would be higher than the amount of revenues gathered for most drivers.

Given the political inability of raising gas taxes, we'll probably be forced to gradually go to toll roads for much of this country, which is likely a good thing.

by Nicoli on Aug 7, 2012 8:56 am • link • report

Does NHTSA have statistics to compare DC to cities?

I get that some like Streeetsblog, but this isn't GGA.

by selxic on Aug 7, 2012 9:07 am • link • report

Re: Union Station, When did "historic preservation" become the number one enemy of smart progress in cities like DC?

by Circle Thomas on Aug 7, 2012 9:10 am • link • report

RE: VMT Tax

Personally I think VMT taxes are just a bit ahead of their time, and too complicated. Some day electric cars will become enough of the national fleet that the gas tax won't be fair to all road users. We are a long way from that though. The Oregon plan is foolish too in that they want to replace the gas tax with a VMT tax. How is a VMT tax going to be any more immune to the political pressure never to raise it than the gas tax? It's not. They should be looking to add a VMT tax on top of the gas tax - we're going to need a mix of both.

Also, the gas tax has an advantage in that it rolls road costs into a regular operating expense for your car. Every time you fill up you have to reckon with the price of gas. Compare that to a VMT tax where every 3 months you get hit with a $50 bill.

Also in my opinion the gas tax works in our favor because it taxes gas guzzlers more per mile than cars with better MPG. This is obviously fair as those cars are polluting more per mile!

I think a lot of this VMT tax stuff in Oregon is some GPS company pushing them to go with their tech to track all this. Seems to me if states want to implement a VMT tax they should get the feds to require automakers to fit their cars with a tamper-proof odometer with a chip/broadcast that gets transmitted once a month.

by MLD on Aug 7, 2012 9:15 am • link • report

VMT Tax is dumb. It's invasive, cumbersome, and takes away an the incentive to ride a fuel efficient vehicle. Just increase the gas tax. Or limit road maintenance to the money actually generated by the gas tax.

Historic preservation people that cry wolf to often risk not being preserved themselves.

by Jasper on Aug 7, 2012 9:15 am • link • report

I think it is time to tax the other things that cars routinely use; motor oil and tires come to mind.

by RJ on Aug 7, 2012 9:18 am • link • report

Ok so I am having a hard time figuring out the Union Station preservation story. Am I mistaken that they're just basically adding on to the present rear/underground facilities and the main hall is staying more or less the same (with facilities being repurposed, which is by no means new in Union Station's history). Is the preservation attempt truly to just keep the building as is and not add anything?

by drumz on Aug 7, 2012 9:27 am • link • report

@charlie-

Unfortunately, at this time opposition to raising (or at least indexing) the gas tax is one of the few things with both bipartisan and bicameral unity.

by Bossi on Aug 7, 2012 9:35 am • link • report

@drumz

No, you are not mistaken. Basically the plan is to take out the rear part of the station that's not original, improve the inside of the historic building, and add on a more modern train facility behind the historic building.

But of course the preservationists will moan because the view will look different than their 1906 painted postcard, and the main entrance to the station will no longer be from Columbus Circle.

by MLD on Aug 7, 2012 9:35 am • link • report

Some preservationists are concerned that the 1907 building will become just an appendage of a larger modern station, and that the old building will lose its function as a station, becoming fully centered on retail.

I couldn't find a decent link in a quick search, but I believe this is similar to what is happening in Denver's Union Station redevelopment

by Thaddeus Bell on Aug 7, 2012 9:36 am • link • report

Since when is "historic use" under the purview of historic preservation? "Use" is a zoning construct.

Obviously the core structure is historic and has landmark protections, but there shouldn't be any preservation issue over the fate of the interior of the building where "use" is concerned.

by William on Aug 7, 2012 9:37 am • link • report

The "preservationist" screed in regards to Union Station is probably a continuation of the anti-height, anti-decking over of the tracks, anti-urbanism, anti anything really that we've continually seen from the Committee of 100 and the other usual suspects. It will be the usual asking for 30% less of whatever is proposed.

Though it would be nice to see airport and train station design be more utilitarian, with more emphasis on maximizing transit services and less emphasis on building huge new lobbies and malls that nobody uses.

by aaa on Aug 7, 2012 9:41 am • link • report

Huh, can you imagine this fight over preservation if it was extended to the airport (like the old v. new terminals at National). Maybe it was but still, this seems like just complaining that I can't buy a soda with a nickel anymore. There are more people now, stations need to be larger.

Plus, in addition to Denver. Cincinnati and Richmond come to mind where the old train stations were preserved and re-used as museums (three museums for Cincinnati).

by drumz on Aug 7, 2012 9:45 am • link • report

But changing the use of the 1907 station to be more retail-focused while creating a new entrance specifically for the train platforms is hardly a new concept--plenty of historic stations in Europe have done the same (Madrid immediately comes to mind).

Besides, what arrivals from other cities currently see when they enter the station is anything but pleasant.

by Circle Thomas on Aug 7, 2012 9:46 am • link • report

Off-topic, but a giant piece of metal came off a L'Enfant escalator and sliced open three passengers: http://unsuckdcmetro.blogspot.com/2012/08/riders-reportedly-injured-as-escalator.html#idc-container . That's not to mention multiple offloadings and delays in this morning's commute alone.

When is GGW going to stop whistling past the graveyard on Metro and hold them to account?

by Corey on Aug 7, 2012 9:53 am • link • report

RE: Ped Crashes

There are raw numbers, there are percentages, and then the most important of all: rates... not just collisions/population, but collisions/travel-miles or other similar metrics. Unfortunately, the NHTSA report failed at providing that information.

by Bossi on Aug 7, 2012 9:53 am • link • report

Union Station, When did "historic preservation" become the number one enemy of smart progress in cities like DC?

In fairness, I can actually see their point-- why not maintain a consistent Breaux Arts architecture across the station?

by JustMe on Aug 7, 2012 10:14 am • link • report

@JustMe
In fairness, I can actually see their point-- why not maintain a consistent Breaux Arts architecture across the station?

1. That isn't their point and isn't in their report. 2. Because rip-off faux-old architecture looks cheap and ugly when placed in context next to the real deal?

by MLD on Aug 7, 2012 10:22 am • link • report

@Corey - Now and then, someone gets seriously injured in a car accident. And I imagine that some people driving on the Beltway were delayed too. Even though we just spent billions of dollars on the ICC. Our transit system needs to be better, but don't impose a double standard.

by Ben Ross on Aug 7, 2012 10:29 am • link • report

The high fatality thing shouldn't be surprising since statistically is basically a really small pop. state that is fully urbanized. So yes, I completely expect DC to have a higher rate of pedestrian fatalities than its similar pop. counter parts of Wyoming and North Dakota.

If its still higher than other cities then we should talk about it.

by drumz on Aug 7, 2012 10:50 am • link • report

The preservation report on Union Station is not really that hysterical. It doesn't say not to enlarge the station and it even manages to avoid much angst over the heights of buildings, an issue that's largely settled.

The report actually just says not to forget about making sure the original station building is still a centerpiece, which is right, it should be, and from what I can see is indeed part of the plan anyway.

It also says the public should be involved, which it is anyway and should be.

And it argues against the proposal to put new stairways into the middle of the floor of the historic station. Dan Malouff thinks that's a bad plan too, while Alex Baca http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/6931/great-halls-new-look-could-accentuate-its-past/">likes it; to me, it's not obvious one way or the other and certainly worth having a preservation conversation.

by David Alpert on Aug 7, 2012 10:50 am • link • report

2. Because rip-off faux-old architecture looks cheap and ugly when placed in context next to the real deal?

How is building consistent with the style of the original building "rip-off faux-old architecture"? When you build on an extension to your house, don't you build something that "fits in" with your house? Or do you build some kind of glass modernist extension to a colonial-style house?

by JustMe on Aug 7, 2012 10:52 am • link • report

JustMe and MLD
I'm sure a certain someone will chime in any moment with an explanation of that as well as the state of architectural education during the 20th and 21st centuries.

by spookiness on Aug 7, 2012 10:52 am • link • report

Restoration can mean a lot of things. Indy's rail station went through two renovations. the first was horrible--it detracted from appreciation of the space and was commercially unsuccessful, perhaps because it had the same mall junk as everywhere else.

The Beltline is a rare bright spot in Atlanta. they're really looking toward the long-term, which rarely happens there and they started with the most viable stretch, linking the intown neighborhoods on the east Side of ATL. It will become more complicated as they go further South into some of the poorest parts of the city, which aren't even that attractive to people who live in them.

by Rich on Aug 7, 2012 10:56 am • link • report

@David Alpert:

The report actually just says not to forget about making sure the original station building is still a centerpiece, which is right, it should be, and from what I can see is indeed part of the plan anyway.

Why should it be? If it's not being destroyed or defaced, why does it matter what it's being used for, or if it's playing as important of a role as it was originally?

by Gray on Aug 7, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

Huh, can you imagine this fight over preservation if it was extended to the airport (like the old v. new terminals at National)

I actually like DCA's old terminal. As long as a terminal building is architecturally notable and adequately serving modern airline operations, I think it should at least be considered for preservation. LaGuardia's Marine Air Terminal, and JFK's (stunning) Terminal 5 both jump out as being great old buildings that were preserved while being kept up-to-date for modern uses.)

That said, the "Antis" rallying against the Union Station renovation are nuts. That ship sailed ages ago. Take London's St Pancras station -- even the most diehard preservationists would agree that the rebuilt station was a massive improvement over the (decaying and nonfunctional) original.

by andrew on Aug 7, 2012 11:13 am • link • report

Ooh. I know. Now that the original building is less important, we can put a visitor's center there!

by andrew on Aug 7, 2012 11:14 am • link • report

Gray: The building is still basically the front door for people going to and from the Senate buildings, Capitol, and Mall. A lot of Hill workers and tourists go in and out of there. I think it would be a shame if they did what some stations have done where not only is the station a mall, but to get to the real train station, you have to walk around the train-station-looking-building to some sort of side door and go into the station.

Under the plan that was published last week, you will go into the big front doors, and right smack dab in the center of the rear wall will be an opening to the train shed. So you have this beautiful vaulted front room, and then you walk the logical direction backward from the middle to get to the trains.

That seems suitably respectful of the station to me, while also being practical given that Ashkenazy has a 99-year lease to use most of the space in the old building for retail.

by David Alpert on Aug 7, 2012 11:19 am • link • report

RE Union Station preservation, we should go all steampunk on the thing. Who needs Quiktrack ticket machines when you can have steam-powered computers?

And anyway, this is one of Burnham's buildings... isn't failing to "stagger" Burnham a failure to preserve his buildings as intended? If he found out that we *hadn't* crowned Union Station with a mile-high monument to the 21st Century he would disown us.

by Steven H on Aug 7, 2012 11:26 am • link • report

David,

That's what I thought which is why it was confusing to me why people seem to be arguing about this. I get it as a precautionary measure but I wanted to make sure that I didn't misread everything I had come across.

by drumz on Aug 7, 2012 11:29 am • link • report

Now and then, someone gets seriously injured in a car accident. And I imagine that some people driving on the Beltway were delayed too.

There's a huge difference between injuries caused by accidents and injuries caused by infrastructure falling apart. For example, if concrete from a bridge fell and injured someone, that would be a much bigger deal than an auto accident.

Ditto on delays. If delays on the beltway were caused by infrastructure breaking down because basic maintenance was not performed, that's a much bigger deal than congestion caused by a mishap such a truck spilling it's cargo. WMATA has chronically underinvested in maintenance and now we're paying the piper. This should be as unacceptable as waiting for the Wilson Bridge to actually fail, causing lanes to be taken out of service, before replacing the bridge.

by Falls Church on Aug 7, 2012 12:12 pm • link • report

Our transit system needs to be better, but don't impose a double standard.

When someone keeps their car in a dismal state of repair and injures other drivers when a door falls off in the middle of the Beltway, they're likely to face criminal charges. When the hard-core faction of bad apples inside WMATA neglects their jobs or does them poorly, crickets.

There's a double standard, all right, but it runs the other way. And it's our fares and taxes that are being abused.

by Arl Fan on Aug 7, 2012 12:48 pm • link • report

@Falls Church

How about when there is an accident on FFX County Parkway from someone swerving to hit a pothole? Or other dangerous road conditions that haven't been taken care of due to a massive underinvestment in infrastructure? Only difference is Metro has realized the issue, and is investing to fix the problem. States and the federal government have chosen not to recognize the issue, and are not investing to fix it.

by Kyle-w on Aug 7, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report

From the looks of the drawings the only thing they'd be touching on the original station is the god awful passenger sitting area and hall that was clearly done poorly in the 80's or something. I think the proposed additions look very promising. I don't think the antis even know what they are anti about yet.

by NikolasM on Aug 7, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

How about when there is an accident on FFX County Parkway from someone swerving to hit a pothole?

I don't think that accidents caused by people swerving to avoid potholes really happens with any kind of frequency but feel free to prove me wrong.

Also, VDOT is very efficient at filling in potholes. I've called in numerous potholes and they have all been filled within days of reporting them. Furthermore, if your car sustains damage from a pothole, you can claim damages from VDOT.

Or other dangerous road conditions that haven't been taken care of due to a massive underinvestment in infrastructure?

What are those? And don't reference unsafe road designs because we're not talking about a failure to make upgrades, we're talking about a failure to maintain what's already there.

Only difference is Metro has realized the issue, and is investing to fix the problem.

Metro got religion after the Red Line crash and pressure from Sen. Mikulski and a GAO report and other federal oversight that made them more accountable. When Senators need to make the below kinds of statements, I wouldn't say "metro realized the issue"

Mikulski testified that Metro has been paying "lip service" to lapses in safety oversight and accountability. She said she was "really hot about this" and called on the Metro board to take "appropriate and immediate action."

"They need a more vigorous and aggressive form of management at Metro," said Mikulski, stabbing a finger in the air during testimony before a Senate transportation subcommittee.

by Falls Church on Aug 7, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report

It's also worth noting that the FFX Parkway, the worst offender when it comes to potholes, is getting a full repaving later this summer. Yes, they let this road get too bad before taking action but this was due to the temporary factor of a bad economy and the fact that stimulus money couldn't go to this road for technical reasons. WMATA's maintenance issues are chronic and are the result of mismanagement that requires federal oversight to fix.

by Falls Church on Aug 7, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report

@Falls Church

600,000 people use metro daily. Three people were hurt due to infrastructure issues today. Not really sure what the argument is. With how many people are killed yearly on our highways, you really want to argue that people aren't killed due to swerving to avoid potholes? Or dodging a deer that got onto the road due to a fence that wasn't maintained? Or swerved to avoid a traffic cone that is left on the road?

Regardless, as mentioned above, not sure what the point of the argument is. I agree, Metro did not maintain its infrastructure in a way it should have. The problem has been recognized (even if it took 9 people dead) and they are now fixing the issues. I am not a huge fan of metro management/employees. I think they are surely the worst union in the area, but it is what it is, and it does seem like things are improving. More than one can say about the conditions of roads in the DC metro area, and nationwide.

by Kyle-w on Aug 7, 2012 3:01 pm • link • report

Three people were hurt due to infrastructure issues today. Not really sure what the argument is.

The point is not that Metro is dangerous. The point is that Metro is mismanaged, grossly so with regards to governance and maintenance issues. This fact is recognized at most levels of government. Infrastructure that is literally falling apart is a symptom of that mismanagement.

With how many people are killed yearly on our highways, you really want to argue that people aren't killed due to swerving to avoid potholes? Or dodging a deer that got onto the road due to a fence that wasn't maintained? Or swerved to avoid a traffic cone that is left on the road?

A pothole that goes unfilled or fence that didn't get mended in time -- those are mainly examples of human error. WMATA's escalator failures and maintenance issues are symptoms of systemic mismanagement. You don't see Congressional hearings about mismanagement at USDOT or state DOTs.

The problem has been recognized (even if it took 9 people dead) and they are now fixing the issues.

I don't know that the underlying problem of mismanagement and poor governance that led to the situation is really getting fixed to the point that federal oversight deems adequate.

The bigger point is that comparing WMATA's issues with the more mundane issues on our roads and highways is whistling past the graveyard. We would be better off holding WMATA's feet to the fire as Sen. Mikulski continues to do. The below is the kind of attitude we should all have -- not, oh well, these things happen, it is what it is:

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski lashed out at Metro on Monday, decrying the recent run of safety problems, even as the transit agency said it still could not explain what caused a computer glitch that forced the shutdown of the system twice over the weekend...

Sen. Barbara Mikulski on Thursday demanded that the Federal Transit Administration update a 2010 safety audit of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to determine what progress the agency had made in meeting federal recommendations. “We need to focus, fix and continue our reform efforts on Metro,” Mikulski said. “We need to make sure that we continue to make progress on safety, predictability and reliability on America’s Subway.”

Mikulski is also asking the FTA to examine Metro’s system, equipment maintenance and procedures, and how often these systems are inspected.

by Falls Church on Aug 7, 2012 4:07 pm • link • report

@Ben Ross

When was the last tie a day went by without GGW publishing at least one article about people being injured or killed in car crashes (in fact one of the links in this very post is on that topic)? Yet reporting on Metro's ongoing death spiral is minimal and often takes the form of pretending that lack of funding for WMATA is the only problem.

You are absolutly right that "Our transit system needs to be better" but WMATA has continually shown itself to be either unable or unwilling to address the issues which are crippling Metro and will only I prove if forced to. A process which will not start until it is made to account for its myriad failings. Ignoring the death spiral will only result in Metro getting worse.

by Jacob on Aug 7, 2012 4:47 pm • link • report

@Falls Church

I believe you think I am disagreeing with you, which I am not. I agree, Metro is wildly mismanaged, and a cluster F at all levels. If the proper people were running this organization, we would see much better performance, lower costs, higher reliability etc.

by Kyle-w on Aug 7, 2012 4:57 pm • link • report

The problem has been recognized (even if it took 9 people dead) and they are now fixing the issues.

There is exactly zero evidence that this is the case.

Here's what I think: I think, like good urban liberals, the GGW crowd loves public transportation (I do too!). People here see WMATA as being on "their team", against Team Car, and Team Highway, and Team Suburb, and Team Republican. And they think that holding a teammate to account, publicly, will result in bad things for Team City.

Just look at how David Alpert is haranguing a journalist for looking into fiscal mismanagement at Metro. Seriously? That's what it's come to? The urbanist community in this city is actively protecting a culture of fraud, mismanagement, and utter disregard for rider safety, convenience, and comfort?

I don't understand how the last few weeks - a total disaster on the system, even by Metro's standards - have gone completely unmentioned and uncommented on by the biggest urbanist community in the city. Is it just exasperation, a realization that these problems at Metro will never be fixed?

by Corey on Aug 7, 2012 5:09 pm • link • report

I'm not sure how anyone can be against the expansion of Union Station. They're keeping the original, and it'll still be the gateway to Capitol Hill. Sure, having some architecture that complimented the priginal would be nice, but a glassy addition is what you'd expect now-a-days, so if it works well, onwards and forward.

by Thayer-D on Aug 7, 2012 9:39 pm • link • report

@ kyle-w & Falls church: I think the problems at WMATA are two or three fold. First: Utterly visionless, incompetent management. Second: Decades of underfunding. Even competent management could not have kept WMATA running properly on the meagre tip WMATA gets for funding. Third: A terrible union contract, caused by poor negotiations by incompetent management and resulting in a lot of money being misspent on labor, draining the budget.

by Jasper on Aug 8, 2012 9:35 am • link • report