lol at the use of the term "dangerously low" if someone is going the posted speed limit (at any speed) and they're a danger to you that means you're going to fast. You can debate the merits of the speed limit yourself if you want but someone going the speed limit (ceterus paribus) is by definition not the dangerous one.

"Why let the D.C. Pedestrian Advisory Council and the D.C. Bicycle Advisory Council have a seat at the table, other than to ensure a voice for car-hating liberals?" They answer their own question in the statement but hey even AAA mid-atlantic is too milk toast for these drag racers (hey I can play a name calling game too!)

by drumz on Aug 10, 2012 8:59 am • link • report

You mean WT editorials aren't usually bad?

by spookiness on Aug 10, 2012 9:17 am • link • report

I can understand not wanting to make some information public should it contain information that could introduce liability risks. Not to say I agree with it, but can understand the situation it can induce.

For example, if there is an issue that is infeasible to address with current or forecast resources, or if there is an issue that may have a popular band-aid solution to address some symptoms but could make other problems worse, &/or an unpopular real solution to address the problem.

But... trade secrets? Didn't know a public agency could have those.

by Bossi on Aug 10, 2012 9:23 am • link • report

The conservative Washington Times shows once again why many centrists lean to the dems, not becasue of their inherant superiority, but becasue of how many times the repubs gloss over their hypocracy.
"congressmen will realize they need to assert more authority over the federal city"...so much for local government!

by Thayer-D on Aug 10, 2012 9:28 am • link • report

The Florida train story is interesting but you'll still need a car once you get to Orlando or Miami.

by Joe Flood on Aug 10, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

Re: job sprawl

My fiancee and I have this problem but for a different reason. Through a series of circumstances we own our place and live in MD but work in VA. We have easy Metro access for both jobs but it increases commute times and is much more costly than car pooling together. We don't have kids yet so I can't imagine what kind of strain that would put on us.

This line though just about made my eyeballs roll into the back of my head:

Employers need to catch on to these realities – fast.

A textbook look into the mind of an idealistic blogger who doesn't live in the real world. My employer has offices both in the core of DC and out closer to the beltway. Believe me, we'd love to move everyone into DC and be closer to our customer, but I've seen the increased cost of rent it would put on us and it would make no sense financially.

by Fitz on Aug 10, 2012 9:33 am • link • report

The DC speed camera system is corrupt, as proven by the recent arrest and firing of a police officer for falsifying device calibration records.

My guess is that this officer did what he did because he thought he would get away with it. And he thought he would get away with it because he knew other officers who were.

The entire operation should be investigated, from the top down.

by ceefer66 on Aug 10, 2012 9:40 am • link • report

From the WT "bad editorial":

"The District of Columbia’s speed-camera revenue-raising grows more brazen by the day... the for-profit Arizona-based vendor ... has been busy installing permanent speed cameras at well-concealed freeway locations on Interstate 295 and Interstate 395. They hope to entrap travelers surprised that an interstate highway could possibly have a speed limit as dangerously low as 40 or 45 miles per hour... Angering the wrong senator could help cut off vital federal funding that was used to set up the program a decade ago. Now a camera stationed on I-395 is designed to dish out tickets to the thousands of congressional staffers who live in Virginia and make their way to the Capitol via the Third Street Tunnel each day...The District must think it’s now untouchable."
-------

Maybe they do.

And we should cheer them on because it's likely they eventually will anger the wrong Senator or Representative who will then pull the plug on this predatory speed camera program. Unlike Maryland commuters (the current prime prey) Congress CAN do something about it and they just might.

I certainly hope so.

by ceefer66 on Aug 10, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

"Believe me, we'd love to move everyone into DC and be closer to our customer, but I've seen the increased cost of rent it would put on us and it would make no sense financially."
---

Thanks to the height limits that limit supply and push up rents.

This is one of the consequences of the over-emphasis on "preserving views".

by ceefer66 on Aug 10, 2012 9:51 am • link • report

A bill before the Maryland General assembly would allow referendums on funding transportation projects, after several efforts to raise needed revenue in the legislature failed.

Oh great. Whimpy legislators trying to push of their failure to get stuff done to voters, so they can get re-elected on 'not increasing taxes', while hiding behind voters who voted down these referendums, with the result of deteriorating infrastructure.

Want to read a bad editorial?

On the bright side, they don't like AAA.

"AAA is first and foremost an insurance company. It lobbies tirelessly across the country in favor of ticketing because violations that carry points mean higher payments to insurance companies like AAA."

Why always look for strife, and not look for agreement?

Job sprawl is difficult for the rising number of two income households

D'uh. And this is made worse by young couples who can't sell their house because it's underwater (true for most people who bought between 5 and 15 years ago). In other unsurprising news: Grass is growing thanks to the rain from last night. Oh, and: Maryland works to reduce traffic deaths. Glad to hear MD is performing a key government function: protecting the public.

by Jasper on Aug 10, 2012 9:51 am • link • report

The job sprawl issue is a tough nut to crack and lot of it is recognizing the impact of opportunity costs to living in a neighborhood or town as it relates to where you can work. This was one of the reasons I moved to Arlington when I considered that I'd be close to the major jobs center (downtown) but could also look at opportunities in Bethesda or back out in Fairfax if needed. To me I'd rather stay in my neighborhood and deal with a potentially longer commute but if I get a new job, I may have to move (easier as a renter for sure but sometimes this debate is framed as if people have never moved because of a job before).

I know its tough and employers are just beginning to re-realize that location decisions rely on more than just the price per square foot.

This is a problem that can only be solved by fixing several problems at once, including density downtown, the recovery of the housing market so people can actually have a chance to sell their home, and a realization that the infrastructure isn't there (road or otherwise) to be commuting from gaithersburg to Tysons or whatever for very long.

by drumz on Aug 10, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

@Fitz
This line though just about made my eyeballs roll into the back of my head:

Employers need to catch on to these realities – fast.

A textbook look into the mind of an idealistic blogger who doesn't live in the real world. My employer has offices both in the core of DC and out closer to the beltway. Believe me, we'd love to move everyone into DC and be closer to our customer, but I've seen the increased cost of rent it would put on us and it would make no sense financially.

It's not about "idealistic bloggers" vs "the real world." The reality is that in the "real world" example you cite, the employer sees "savings" because it pushes costs (transportation, time, pollution, infrastructure, etc.) off of its books and onto the backs of its workers and the public.

The fact that it makes no sense financially for the business to have more workers in the city is the entire point of the criticism of the way we do things now.

It also shows how in the economy we have now, where both adults will likely have to work and people change jobs relatively frequently, the American dream of owning your home may not be the most efficient thing for our economy.

by MLD on Aug 10, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

Under clear, uncongested conditions, 40 or 45 mph in the I-295 tunnel probably is too low. It's probably safe to say, however, that nobody, Congressional staffers who commute from Maryland or Virginia included, is able to top out anywhere near 40mph during their daily commutes.

Still, using silly things like reason, logic and the like is probably foolish when it comes to addressing the WT editorial staff.

by rosenrosen on Aug 10, 2012 9:53 am • link • report

@Fitz

That makes sense with the increased cost. Cue up the conversation from yesterday about how the height limit is so wonderful! Sigh. One can only hope that, given the current reality, we continue to do things like the replacement at 2001 M st. It is replacing an ugly building that is not using the entire lot.

Old building: 229,000 square feet, 25,000 square feet per floor, 9 floors, no low-energy certification. Interior column spacing: 22 feet. Designed by Smith Segretti Tepper, finished in 1987. Built to 1984 National Code energy standards.

New building: 284,000 square feet, 32,000 square feet per floor, 10 floors, interior column spacing: 44 feet. Meets LEED GOLD ‘Green Building’ certification. This means the new building will be MUCH more energy efficient than the old one, resulting in lower rents and lower carbon emissions.

The only thing from the times "editorial" that had any sense was his argument that we have no put cameras in the way of senators. Interesting to say that, and it seems true. Plenty of people on Capital Hill are surely going to get these tickets, will be interesting to see how that plays out.

by Kyle-w on Aug 10, 2012 10:01 am • link • report

Trade secrets? You've got to be kidding me. Since riders (and taxpayers) paid for this study, don't we deserve to know the results? (I mean, I'm pretty sure we know what the results were, but I'd like to see WMATA admit the truth.)

Re: commute sprawl - My husband and I are having this exact issue right now. I work near Navy Yard and he works just south of Baltimore. We live in downtown Silver Spring, which we love; I take Metro to work and he drives. However, even though I am commuting 10 miles and he is traveling 30, it still takes me significantly longer to get to work. We're hoping to buy a place soon and are struggling to decide on a neighborhood. I'd love to be able to walk or bike to work, since Metro seems to get worse by the week, but living in most parts of the District would probably make his commute pretty miserable. We'll see if we can agree on a place!

by silver springer on Aug 10, 2012 10:03 am • link • report

Looking for logic in a WT editorial is like looking for the pony in a pile of you-know-what. WT editorials are expressions of the Party Line to which believers must adhere. Relationship to reality is optional.

by MattF on Aug 10, 2012 10:04 am • link • report

Re: "trade secrets"

I could see trade secrets applying in regards to some sort of contract, maybe. But in my limited experience with FOIA that putting a exception label on something doesn't make it so. The way to find out however would require someone to request these documents under the FOIA and then see what their team says and appeal it if necessary. That of course takes time and money but in the end that may be the last option for an intransigent organization.

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

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by thump on Aug 10, 2012 10:20 am • link • report

Kyle,

I am not sure if you were being sarcastic, but I can promise you when a building owner spends upwards of ~60 bucks a sq/ft to gut an office building, or hundreds of dollars a sq/ft to demo and rebuild, lowering rents is not part of the business model.

Building owners spend this money for a variety of reasons. In this case it looks like to max out their allowed FAR, adding more space without buying more property.

Others do it to make their leasable space more attractive to prospective tenants, in the past 7-10 years LEED has become a buzzword that tenants now demand for their space, and it is done more out of cache, not because they see any benefit from it whatsoever.

Others do it so they can charge more, not less. Taking this existing Class B office space and converting it to Class A lets you charge more per sq/ft, not less. Any savings in utilities “could” technically be passed on to the tenant, but they certainly never are. Why would someone spend all that money, simply to charge less?

Would you spend ~50K renovating your English basement apartment of your row house, then list it for rent on Craigslist for less than you had it rented for before? Of course not. Any savings in utilities is absorbed by the owner/landlord, in the short term to offset the fortune they just spent renovating the building, in the long term to better their profitability margins.

I would love for you to point out one building that has been renovated in DC…ever that then reduced lease rates right after.

And again with the height limit.

DC’s office lease rates have been anywhere from 30% to 100% higher than NOVA’s forever, even back in the 60’s-late 90’s when the downtown core of the District had hundreds of acres of surface parking lots where there are now 12 story glass boxes. Clearly with so much excess buildable capacity, you can admit that a height limit had nothing to do with office lease rates at the time? Then please explain how DC rents were so much higher than NOVA’s in the 70’s and 80’s? The height limit is a convenient carnard that gets thrown around by folks who don’t really understand.

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

It's not about "idealistic bloggers" vs "the real world." The reality is that in the "real world" example you cite, the employer sees "savings" because it pushes costs (transportation, time, pollution, infrastructure, etc.) off of its books and onto the backs of its workers and the public.

The fact that it makes no sense financially for the business to have more workers in the city is the entire point of the criticism of the way we do things now.

In the context of my argument, it is very much about "ideal bloggers" vs. "the real world" because the author is unable to recognize the tradeoffs and opportunity costs that come being located outside the core of DC. My employer provides transportation to/from Metro in addition to the fact that public transit to this office is in place and easily accessible, even though we're not near the core of the region. It's also subsidized through pre-tax transit purchases.

You're correct that policy can be modified to provide incentive for better behavior for employers and commuters, but the author is incorrect when she criticizes employers for acting in ways that are reasonable and financially rational.

by Fitz on Aug 10, 2012 10:26 am • link • report

the for-profit Arizona-based vendor ... has been busy installing permanent speed cameras at well-concealed freeway locations on Interstate 295 and Interstate 395.

If the plug gets pulled on the DC camera program it will be because of those cameras. Why risk the entire camera program over a few cameras that have little to no safety benefit to peds/bikers? Just shift those cameras to more ped intensive areas of the city and get on with the rest of the program.

by Falls Church on Aug 10, 2012 10:34 am • link • report

Re: Trade secrets

Not only is it preposterous to suggest that information gathered by passengers/secret shoppers riding on the trains is somehow proprietary, but that's hardly the worst bit of secrecy in the article, which is in the last paragraph:

the agency has increasingly declined to provide information, and often takes up to 11 months to do so when fulfilling a public records request. It now declines to provide disciplinary action taken against employees, when officials previously would disclose if someone was fired or suspended without providing names. It has declined a request for the mileage logs on its fleet of vehicles used by executives for business purposes, plus multiple reports including one $70,000 consultants' report on suicide prevention and another assessing its police department. It also has failed to disclose suicides at its parking garages, saying such public deaths did not affect train service.

by Arl Fan on Aug 10, 2012 10:42 am • link • report

@anon
I am not sure if you were being sarcastic, but I can promise you when a building owner spends upwards of ~60 bucks a sq/ft to gut an office building, or hundreds of dollars a sq/ft to demo and rebuild, lowering rents is not part of the business model.

There is one reason why developers tear down buildings to build new ones in their place: making money.

Why are they able to make money by doing this? Because demand for office space in the downtown core outstrips supply.

Do people think the business decisions are made in this order?
1. Perform construction project (basement refit, tear down and rebuild).
2. Decide what rent to charge.

Reality:
1. Decide what rent the market will bear.
2. Figure out if market rent will cover cost of construction project+profit
3. If yes, build, then charge what the market will bear

Also, nobody has argued that the height limit is the sole factor in high office rents. It isn't. It is but one of many factors.

Also, in the 60s-early 80s DC was limited as to what size of buildings could be built because of transportation issues. You couldn't support a downtown filled with 12-story buildings on a bus system (with limited Metro) alone. You could not funnel that many people into and out of the city every day.

by MLD on Aug 10, 2012 10:44 am • link • report

in a tight labor market, employers will consider locational convenience for workers (we arent quite at the point where only the grey haired folks remember "tight labor markets" but we are getting there.

In recent decades that has not always favored inner city locations. Cheap white collar labor was often more easily available further out. Today certain types of professional labor draw certain firms to cities.

The dual income thing plays complexly. It COULD help core locations. It can also help well located suburban locations against other suburban locations. For example Tysons, vs further out toward Dulles. Its a factor in suburb to suburb commutes, and reverse commutes. Certainly its a huge factor for the whole Tysons reinvention. Living IN Tysons will be a boon where one partner works in Tysons, and one in DC or North Arlington.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 10, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

Filtering. Filtering. Filtering.

No, you would not expect new construction or newly renovated space to be cheap, but that's not the point - the point is to add supply to meet the overall market demand, and lower quality properties (for whatever reason) will see their prices 'filter down' to more affordable levels.

That, in essence, is why suburban rents have been cheaper than downtown rents, even when there was excess capacity. Downtown still had a location premium.

The real question is if the prices for that space substantially exceed the cost of construction of new space - that should tell us if there's a constraint on the market or not. And I think there is, very much so.

by Alex B. on Aug 10, 2012 10:58 am • link • report

Who builds to meet the "overall market demand?" There's no money in that.

by selxic on Aug 10, 2012 11:50 am • link • report

@anon

Sorry, that was a quote copied from POP. I didn't realize the ridiculous part about lower rents was still included. The point stands, but remove the line about lower rents. Sorry for the confusion.

by Kyle-w on Aug 10, 2012 11:56 am • link • report

Private rail from South Florida to Orlando? What a novel idea.

Oh wait, it was tried once before in the late 90's and was a miserable failure. It was called the Florida Fun Train, although I doubt it was much fun for its investors.

But I am sure it will work this time!

by dcdriver on Aug 10, 2012 11:59 am • link • report

@Joe Flood, the FEC station in Orlando will be at the airport. Those going to see the Mouse or other resorts can get a bus there to the resort and spend their time at the resort. Or get a rental car at the airport. Part of the business will likely be those going between the Orlando resorts and the cruise ships operating out of Miami. Most of that group won't need cars.

Miami does have a Metro, albeit 1 line with a new split to the airport. Those traveling to Miami on the FEC can take the Miami Metro from the FEC Miami station to the airport complex and get rental cars there.

If the FEC service succeeds, it may serve as a major trigger in getting both Miami and Orlando to invest in starting (Orlando) or expanding (Miami) local rail transit.

by AlanF on Aug 10, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report

Googling the guy profiled in the job sprawl article, I see that he works at Bethesda Softworks, which is probably a top-5 game publisher (among others, they developed Fallout 3, which lovingly captured metro DC geography and installed a hive of fire-breathing mutant ants near the East Falls Church metro). Employment at a "prestige employer" only amplifies the job sprawl issue, because it's one of those things you really, really don't want to give up in favor of relocation.

I believe the biggest challenge with DC is the expanse of its employment centers, and the fact that it provides a large and difficult gulf between them. In normal logic, you could live in Virginia because you either both work in DC or work in DC and Virginia; around here, it's just as likely that one of you works in Maryland. Add in the expansion of federal agencies outward--in part due to BRAC, in part due to excessive costs in the downtown core--and you have a lot of consultants and government employees whose offices are probably making the move across the DC gulf, too, whether it's to Belvoir, Skyline, Fort Meade, etc.

Tough stuff. I am not exciting about buying a house/condo when the time comes.

by worthing on Aug 10, 2012 2:35 pm • link • report

@ Falls Church,

"the for-profit Arizona-based vendor ... has been busy installing permanent speed cameras at well-concealed freeway locations on Interstate 295 and Interstate 395.

If the plug gets pulled on the DC camera program it will be because of those cameras. Why risk the entire camera program over a few cameras that have little to no safety benefit to peds/bikers? Just shift those cameras to more ped intensive areas of the city and get on with the rest of the program.
------

Exactly.

But the DC "government" doesn't get it. Drunk with power from the revenue the speed cameras are bringing in, and cheered on by speed camera apologists, DC is fast overplaying their hand and may very well kill the golden goose.

Now they're going after Virginia commuters as well as their tradional prey, commuters from Maryland. Speed cameras are now being mounted (or rather hidden) in locations on I-395 that can potentially nail congressional staffers and visiting constituents if not members of Congress themselves. It will only take one angry influential Senator or Congressman to threaten holding up a funding item - or the entire DC budget - over the speed camera delpoyment policy.

DC officials could very well be faced with a choice: raise the speed limits on I-395 and I-295 or take down the cameras.

Priceless!

by ceefer66 on Aug 10, 2012 4:17 pm • link • report

@dcdriver, at risk of getting too far OT for GGW, the FEC plans are a very different matter from the short lived Florida Fun excursion train. The FEC owns under-utilized tracks from Miami to Jacksonville which are regarded to be in excellent condition and can be upgraded to 90 mph speeds with minimal cost. The FEC is planning to build approx 40 miles of new tracks from the coast at Cocoa FL to the Orlando Airport which will allow 125 mph speeds (very straight with no grade crossings down the median of a state toll road).

The projected trip time is about 3 hours from downtown Miami to Orlando which is faster than driving. With hourly frequencies, a true corridor service. But also a unique set of circumstances with the FEC looking to capitalize on the assets of the tracks and property they own.

by AlanF on Aug 10, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report

And we now learn that the speed cameras are also a windfall for the officers who get paid overtime to sit in their cars and "monitor" them...and by monitor I mean take a test picture once per hour.

Or don't and just take all the pictures at the end of the shift, fool around with the time stamp on the camera, and say you did.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/9/former-dc-cop-admits-falsifying-radar-camera-testi/

by dcdriver on Aug 10, 2012 4:55 pm • link • report

I've noticed that since the 1st of August, the "predatory" mobile cameras have "mysteriously" disappeared from 395 near the 7th St SW overpass. So maybe the complaints from congressional offices have had some effect.

Yes, it is possible for the unwary to go through there at midday at a modest 51 mph (more than 10 over--but still lower than any posted freeway speed limit in Virginia or Maryland) and be socked with a hefty photo fine. Of course, there is zero bike/ped safety component on a four-lane freeway.

by Paul on Aug 10, 2012 5:03 pm • link • report

"And we now learn that the speed cameras are also a windfall for the officers who get paid overtime to sit in their cars and "monitor" them...and by monitor I mean take a test picture once per hour."
----
That, too, along with the manner in which the cameras are deployed.

I've lost count of the number of times I've observed officers actually sleeping while "monitoring" mobile speed cameras on East Capitol St, suitland Parkway, and NY Avenue. I always "acknowledge" their presence by blowing my horn long and loud.

And no, I'm not worried about them pursuing me because the lazy clown in the police car isn't about to leave his post and blow the chance to nail a "speeder". Plus, they're not about to risk getting their name and badge number in front of Chief Lanier or in the papers or on TV - which is exactly what I would make happen.

by ceefer66 on Aug 10, 2012 7:10 pm • link • report

@Joe Flood The Florida train story is interesting but you'll still need a car once you get to Orlando or Miami

I've been to Miami twice and rented a car neither time. But even if I did need a car, how is that different than flying to either city? There should really be a company that will rent travellers a car for several days for a fee. If only such companies existed.

by David C on Aug 13, 2012 3:18 pm • link • report

@ceefer66 The DC speed camera system is corrupt, as proven by the recent arrest and firing of a police officer for falsifying device calibration records.

Let's see...one cop - who was caught and punished - over five years of speed ticketing. If that's corruption, I'd like to bring DC-style corruption to Congress.

As for hoping that Congress interferes in our business... thanks for your support.

by David C on Aug 13, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report

@Paul Of course, there is zero bike/ped safety component on a four-lane freeway.

Suddenly drivers are very concerned with bike/ped safety, as in any camera that doesn't provide it isn't worth while. Did cars suddenly get so safe that motorists don't die in crashes anymore, because if not, then they still hava a safety component.

by David C on Aug 13, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report

Suddenly drivers are very concerned with bike/ped safety, as in any camera that doesn't provide it isn't worth while. Did cars suddenly get so safe that motorists don't die in crashes anymore, because if not, then they still hava a safety component

And, suddenly bikers/peds are very concerned with driver safety...

Nothing is 100% totally safe. There will always be risks in getting in your car and driving and we shouldn't be trying to lower speeds to the point that no one ever dies in a crash. There's a certain tradeoff between speed and safety and there's nothing inherently wrong with allowing slightly higher speeds even if it increases crash risk a little. If 85% of drivers would like to drive a little faster, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that if it is a car-only road that doesn't affect anyone else?

DC has a low rate of motorist deaths per mile driven compared to the averages. There is no pressing need to implement cameras for the sake of driver safety.

by Falls Church on Aug 13, 2012 10:51 pm • link • report

And, suddenly bikers/peds are very concerned with driver safety...

No, in a way that is not at all sudden, lawmakers, police and traffic engineers are very concerned with driver safety. They're the ones who define speed limits, pass laws and place speed cameras.

If 85% of drivers would like to drive a little faster, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that if it is a car-only road that doesn't affect anyone else?

Perhaps they should if that were true. But, unfortunately speeding does affect someone else, namely other motorists.

by David C on Aug 13, 2012 11:39 pm • link • report

we shouldn't be trying to lower speeds to the point that no one ever dies in a crash.

Why not?

there's nothing inherently wrong with allowing slightly higher speeds even if it increases crash risk a little.

So then, safety is not the top priority? Convenience trumps it?

by David C on Aug 13, 2012 11:41 pm • link • report