Links
Breakfast links: Nowhere fast
Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.
Not so HOT revenue numbers: In the first 6 weeks, the Beltway HOT lanes lost $11.3 million with about half the projected volume, though Transurban thinks traffic will pick up in years to come. (Examiner) 
Not going anywhere: Jim Graham will not resign after the ethics board found that he violated ethics rules. Tommy Wells meanwhile called for an ad hoc committee to further investigate the matter. (Post)
Gray on transportation: Mayor Gray says streetcars will run by the end of 2013, and would consider a congestion charge or increased telework to reduce traffic. (WTOP)
What to do with the CFO?: Should DC keep its rather unique independent CFO? Mayor Gray muses about whether it's time to rethink the system now that DC has been fiscally stable for many years and enjoyed a significant surplus. (Post)
Next stop: Love: One couple tries to find a date spot at each of the 86 Metro stations, but some stations like Vienna are very difficult. Going Out Guide lists their date ideas for most Metro stations, leaving out many of the tougher ones. (Post)
First fatal car crash: In the first traffic fatality in DC, at 15th St. and New York Ave. NW in 1904, the driver left the scene without waiting. The incident garnered little press coverage, perhaps because the victim was black. (Post)
And...: Walkable places help people live longer. (Streetsblog) ... New plans for Uline Arena include retail and offices. (Urban Turf) ... Reston gets pedicabs. (FABB)
Next subject: us!: The Washington Post profiles Greater Greater Washington and David Alpert today. Linda Schmitt dislikes the "snarky" articles opposing her views.
Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.
 | Steven Yates grew up in Indiana before moving to DC in 2002 to attend college at American University. He currently lives in Southwest DC.   |
Comments
Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
Sun May 26
11:00 am Roosevelt Ride in Greenbelt
Sat Jun 1
10:00 am CSG walking tour of Wheaton
Tue Jun 4
6:30 pm Height limit meeting at NCPC
Thu Jun 6
Curious if you and others think that the Washington Post is still the single best place to get eyeballs and attention.
If not, what is?
by Jaybird926@aol.com on Feb 11, 2013 8:29 am • link • report
I work in Tysons and drive pass the rt 7 entrance to the Hotlanes twice a day, same time like clockwork. The first month, the fares to go the full distance from the Rt 7 entrance ( to 395) never went higher than $1.05. I was shocked as they told us before they opened the high fare was likely to be in the ~$5 dollar range.
But you drive over the Hotlanes and while the regular beltway lanes are packed, you see one or two cars use the toll lanes every minute or two.
Then starting about a month ago I started seeing the base fare go to $1.40-$1.60, yet you look down at the lanes and they are as empty as they were before.
It is clear that Transurban, shocked that so few people are using them had to increase their fare structure to compensate.
by Hotlanes on Feb 11, 2013 8:38 am • link • report
by charlie on Feb 11, 2013 8:48 am • link • report
The EasyPass transponder where you can turn it to HOV mode as a fee attached to it. I think they get some ticketing fees also.
by RJ on Feb 11, 2013 8:59 am • link • report
Also saw DeBonis link to "Five greater greater years."
Big shots are little shots the keep bucking, a coach once told me. Congratulations to all folks associated with Greatrer Greater Washington & David Alpert -- keep bucking!
by John Muller on Feb 11, 2013 9:04 am • link • report
Signed,
A Fan
by Miriam on Feb 11, 2013 9:08 am • link • report
Mayor Gray muses about whether it's time to rethink the system now that DC has been fiscally stable for many years and enjoyed a significant surplus.
So... We have something that works well, and the mayor wants to get rid of it? Great idea!
The Washington Post profiles Greater Greater Washington
Fair article.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 9:15 am • link • report
Funny how if this story ran a year ago you'd have a lot of problems figuring out what to do once you got to Dunn-Loring but now that's a real happening spot.
by drumz on Feb 11, 2013 9:20 am • link • report
The will be no streetcars running in DC by the end of 2013.
No wire over any of the tracks.
No cars houses to store and maintain streetcars have been built.
No streetcar stop at the Anacostia Metrorail station.
No streetcar stop on the H Street bridge over Union Station.
No crossover to reverse direction on Benning Road at Oklahoma Avenue.
by Sand Box John on Feb 11, 2013 9:27 am • link • report
by aaa on Feb 11, 2013 9:34 am • link • report
by Andrew on Feb 11, 2013 9:36 am • link • report
A. Still unfortunate to still go ahead with the framing as GGW as the place for white dudes when many of the contributors are not. Good lord, just look at the post from a couple of days ago that had a picture of all the contributors.
B. Linda Schmitt may have a problem with a snarky tone but how else do you deal with liars? The only time she's been called out was precisely because she was incredibly misleading on the zoning update.
C. I'll also quibble with Richard Layman on how we (ok, just I) view the C100. I know and understand the great work they've done. However, how else is someone who disagrees with them on a policy matter supposed to disagree? When does respect turn into deferment? Not trying to call Richard out specifically, it just comes up a lot.
D. Good lord those comments to the story. And yet people complain that this is the place where people get mean and nasty?
E. Similarly, if you think that this blog is only for the childless, car free set (which I disagree) where are the supposedly ignored groups getting their news about the cityscape and the policy matters that are discussed here.
by drumz on Feb 11, 2013 9:36 am • link • report
by recyclist on Feb 11, 2013 9:43 am • link • report
GGW was long overdue as a place for a growing segment of DC's population that are not just white and young, but just plain tired of the status quo. Linda Schmidt and C100's animosity towards GGW is more about surprise that we even exist and have the audacity to disagree, and less about us being "snarky". Furthermore, in the world of the commentariat, GGW is actually quite tame and on-topic.
by dc denizen on Feb 11, 2013 9:46 am • link • report
by Thad on Feb 11, 2013 9:47 am • link • report
Oppose tolls. Always.
by Redline SOS on Feb 11, 2013 9:55 am • link • report
Oppose tolls. Always.
Why?
@dc denizen and others: I'm unaware of the backstory regarding C100's dislike for GGW (let alone the reasons for it). Has this been discussed elsewhere?
by The Dawn of a New Gray on Feb 11, 2013 9:58 am • link • report
by Alan B. on Feb 11, 2013 10:04 am • link • report
"In short, I applaud his activism.
But sometimes I feel he forgets not everyone is 28, childless, in great shape, lives a couple blocks from a metro, and loves to bike.
Yet he's willing to push for city policies assuming that to be the case."
That's a pretty fair critique, frankly.
by Potowmack on Feb 11, 2013 10:05 am • link • report
by Alan B. on Feb 11, 2013 10:10 am • link • report
How so? I find it suspect that people trot out this line all the time while failing to consider the costs of the status quo as well and how incremental changes to the status quo actually means that there is less freedom of movement than greater.
by drumz on Feb 11, 2013 10:10 am • link • report
This is very good timing for this to come out. Right when VA is still debating their current transportation funding (which defers to toll roads for any new capacity) and especially while there is still a chance to kill the 460 Boondoggle/Highway to Nowhere.
These are similar projects, in that there will be additional capacity parallel to a previously existing road. Except that one could argue the Beltway actually needed additional capacity, has a lot of high-income drivers who would be willing to pay the toll, has a lot of delays, has many people on it who are in a hurry to get where they are going.
None of these four arguments can be validly made down in HR where 460 would get built. Hopefully the (possible) failure of the HOT Lanes will get Virginia to smarten up, and realize that tolling isn't going to be as effective in VA, and they just need to raise the gas tax.
by Kyle-W on Feb 11, 2013 10:13 am • link • report
Because building infrastructure is a core-government task. Infrastructure should be paid for from the general fund, because it (should) benefits everyone, even those who do not directly use it. Everybody should pay for them, not just the users. This way, everybody has an interest in what happens with tax money.
Secondly, collecting fees or individual use is horrendously inefficient compared to a lump sum annual payment through taxation.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 10:13 am • link • report
Went to Tysons on Sunday to take pictures of the progress of the Silver line.
When I passed through DC I checked out what progress had been done beyond the laying of tracks along H Street, Benning Road, Firth Stirling Avenue and South Capitol Street.
Poles have been installed along Firth Stirling Avenue and South Capitol Street but no wire has been strung.
Grading for the Anacostia Carhouse is mostly done, some concrete has been poured for the carhouse foundations.
The streetcars are still being stored on track 16 at Greenbelt Yard.
Little progress has been done on the Commissioning Facility in Greenbelt Yard and Test Track along the E Route between Collage Park and Greenbelt stations.
I don't believe the stations and the support infrastructure for the Silver line will be ready by the projected opening date in December.
Silver line essay and pictures will be posted in a few days.
by Sand Box John on Feb 11, 2013 10:14 am • link • report
Thad, that guide barely left the core and then most of the places aren't even near the correct stops.
by selxic on Feb 11, 2013 10:17 am • link • report
According to an interview, they are relying on people using regular sources of traffic information (e.g. radio traffic reports, Google/GPS traffic data) to make their decisions. But traffic develops so quickly on the Beltway as to make that data insufficiently reliable.
Perhaps underperformance of the HOT lanes will encourage them to make the investment and add these signs. I'd almost certainly pay $5 to save 10-15 minutes -- but I'm much less likely to spend $5 for just a 25% chance of saving that time.
by Bitter Brew on Feb 11, 2013 10:19 am • link • report
Yes, but you can also toll to manage demand. In fact that's expressly the case with the HOT lanes because if you don't want to pay the toll then you don't have too. If you can't increase the supply (and I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't really add to the 12 lanes that 495 now has in many spots)for whatever reason then you raise the price to manage the demand.
by drumz on Feb 11, 2013 10:20 am • link • report
its wonderfully ironic that DA is attacked in the same article for being too focused on the needs of the affluent, and for being too snarky about the folks opposed to ADU's.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 10:22 am • link • report
The focus of GGW tends to be on parts of the District like Dupont, Adams Morgan, U Street and so on, rather than areas like the Palisades, Upper Northwest and Fort Dupont. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but there is a pretty clear self-selective bias on here.
Sure, there are many people who want to see changes to the District to make it more urbanist. But, there are significant swathes of the District that have a suburban-esque character, and people in those areas don't seem particularly interested in seeing that character change.
I'll admit it's a bit of a simplification, but the average GGW contributor/poster is looking at the District from the mindset of a single and/or childless able-bodied youngish person who can get along relatively easily without a car. That ignores the reality of a lot of people in the District.
by Potowmack on Feb 11, 2013 10:34 am • link • report
Secondly, collecting fees or individual use is horrendously inefficient compared to a lump sum annual payment through taxation.
I also tend to agree with you, that HOT Lanes and the like are terrible, and that building infrastructure is a core-government function, but your funding mechanism is incorrect. Road costs should be born by users. Why should my wife, who drives 2 miles to work, pay as much for roads as someone who drives 20? She shouldn't, in case the answer to that question is unclear.
Also, care to elaborate on how collecting fees on individual use is horribly inefficient? Gas taxes are EXTREMELY easy to collect, and easy to audit if necessary, while the HOT Lanes are EZ Pass only, so no delays, and no toll-collectors.
by Kyle-W on Feb 11, 2013 10:37 am • link • report
Why not build infrastructure to meet demand? Realizing that infrastructure is more than roads. It includes railways, buses, airport, waterways, etc.
In fact that's expressly the case with the HOT lanes because if you don't want to pay the toll then you don't have too.
If it only were so simple. The HOT lanes lock in the current situation on that stretch of I-495 for 75 years. Clearly, 75 years from now whatever we've built now will not suffice. But Transubran will still hold us to this old crappy contract. Not to mention that VA has to pay them if not enough people use the HOT lanes.
If you can't increase the supply (and I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't really add to the 12 lanes that 495 now has in many spots)for whatever reason then you raise the price to manage the demand.
We could build more metro. The Orange Line moves more people along the I-66 corridor than I-66 itself. So, it would have been smarter to build a metro line in the median than to build these stupid HOT lanes, that will harness us for the coming 75 years.
In fact, the only good thing I can see coming from the HOT lanes is that not expanding I-495 there is banned for 75 years, which means we will have to build more metro.
It wold have been much better though to just have build the freaking transit without this boondoggle.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 10:40 am • link • report
There are many contributors and commentors here whose focus is outside DC. Dan Reed on MoCo, several folks on PG, and some interesting discussions of FFX. We've also discussed Tysons, the ColPike LRT, and the Alexandria waterfront plans.
Many of us are drivers who look to transit to relieve congestion, and/or urbanism to enable shorter commutes. We include people who are "car lite" and folks who have full complements of cars, but who want to make walking and biking part of our lifestyle.
Its also naturaly that a blog focused to a considerable degree on issues of development and congestion, will focus on places where those are major issues - however there is been much discussion of upper NW, EOTR, etc.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 10:44 am • link • report
You seem to be conflating two things:
1) using tolls to fund and finance infrastructure;
2) contracting out the responsibilities to build and maintain infrastructure to private companies.
Those are two separate issues.
by Alex B. on Feb 11, 2013 10:44 am • link • report
because building sufficient infrastructure to meet demand when infrastructure usage is free, will always mean spending more than is worthwhile. It fails to incent economizing on infrastructure by making fewer or shorter trips, carpooling, trip chaining, and, in the case of auto use, switching to non auto modes.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 10:46 am • link • report
Public rights of way belong to the public. The land should have been used to expand the existing lanes to benefit all users, not simply those who can afford it. This is class warfare being conducted by the state on middle and lower class workers.
Infrastructure is meant to benefit all.
by Redline SOS on Feb 11, 2013 10:46 am • link • report
basically, what Alex said. The problems with Transurban are separate to the fact of whether its a good idea to toll or not. And while it'd be nice to have infrastructure keep up with demand that's definitely not the reality we live with. Until we can use tolling to manage that demand.
Potowmack,
I'll also echo what AWITC said but wither regards to this,
The focus of GGW tends to be on parts of the District like Dupont, Adams Morgan, U Street and so on, rather than areas like the Palisades, Upper Northwest and Fort Dupont. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but there is a pretty clear self-selective bias on here.
Those neighborhoods you called out also have the most to lose with many of the current city policies. I'd say parking minimums do matter more in in Adams-Morgan and such rather than the Palisades. But as you said those areas are more suburban in nature and that's fine. Why should it apply carte blanche across the city (meanwhile, you're actually talking about urban form rather than suburb or city, there are good ways to design suburbs and bad ways and vice versa.) But that's just one issue out of many. It's a self selection bias because the blog is entirely volunteer run.
Meanwhile the scope of the blog has done nothing but expand since its exception so even that problem is correcting.
by drumz on Feb 11, 2013 10:52 am • link • report
Infrastructure is meant to benefit all."
Transit is not free, bridges and tunnels are often not free, and utilities (whether private or govt owned) charge to cover the cost of infrastructure, as do water providers.
Why are free highways sacred, alone among infrastructure?
And of course you do not need to be affluent to use the toll lanes - just in a hurry and willing to pay.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 10:56 am • link • report
200,000 is a lot -- how much is the fee -- $4 or $5? So a huge portion of the 23,000 vehicles a day must be car poolers who want/need an ez-pass plus.
by charlie on Feb 11, 2013 11:05 am • link • report
I would find it interesting if GGW posted a manifesto (for want of a better word) of the ideal future for the various areas of the District. In my opinion, there are some areas of the District that don't need much in the way of change when it comes to zoning, parking and density. It's been my experience that people in the more suburban areas of the District are concerned that there is a movement out there that wants to turn their neighborhoods into something they don't want.
I live in the Palisades, so many of the problems facing people in the denser parts of the District aren't really an issue. I think people in my neck of the woods would be less opposed to proposed changes to other parts of the District if it was made more apparent that no one is really pushing to change their neighborhoods contrary to their wishes.
by Potowmack on Feb 11, 2013 11:07 am • link • report
But I think if anything this blog has promoted its the fact that different areas do need different considerations and that the best way to tackle that is to make sure that there are lots of choices for people to make wrt to transportation or housing choices.
To use the palisades as an example the argument over ADUs comes up. Most on GGW are pro-ADU in one respect or the other. It doesn't stem from a desire to make Palisades into something its not. It's more for the fact that homeowners should have greater freedom to use their property as they see fit while providing lower cost and lower impact housing options across the district.
Re:
I think people in my neck of the woods would be less opposed to proposed changes to other parts of the District if it was made more apparent that no one is really pushing to change their neighborhoods contrary to their wishes.
You have to figure out what's reasonable. I don't think its reasonable to expect a neighborhood to not change at all throughout 40 years or so of someone living there. So yeah they might be amenable to changes in other parts of the city (which is typically heard of in the refrain "move to somewhere cheaper if you want a cheap place to live" which is an obtuse way of dealing with things) but that doesn't mean they have a right to veto everything that goes on around them. There is a balance and on the whole I think its the GGW and the like who are more balanced because they're actively trying to shape the future than reacting against it.
by drumz on Feb 11, 2013 11:15 am • link • report
by Alan B. on Feb 11, 2013 11:16 am • link • report
More to the point, many people in the more suburban areas of the District are concerned that there's a movement to make the more urban areas of the District less oriented to private automobiles. Since areas like Palisades and Hillcrest alike are arguably more car-dependent than parts of the suburbs, they're in the minority of DC residents who often vote to put the interests of regional drivers over that of folks who actually live in the more walkable neighborhoods.
by oboe on Feb 11, 2013 11:19 am • link • report
by jtown on Feb 11, 2013 11:23 am • link • report
Well, at least we've got one Councilmember out of the bunch who's willing to speak out. Of course, now he'll be pilloried by some for not being a "team player" or "grandstanding". Hard to be a team player when everyone else on your team is either a corrupt dirtball or too scared to open their mouth.
by oboe on Feb 11, 2013 11:30 am • link • report
There doesn't seem to be much change in the works for the Palisades. I haven't noticed too many properties that have ADU-type structures, so that's not going to be much of an issue. And we already have a number of corner stores and other retail establishments along the Foxhall and MacArthur corridor, so that's mostly a non-issue as well. No one is talking about turning the area into a condo-heavy, dense neighborhood (though we already have a number of condo buildings on MacArthur). It would be nice to get a Bikeshare station somewhere west of Georgetown and south of American University. The little retail center containing Jetties on Foxhall might be a good location.
I'm more of a neutral observer when it comes to things like the "war on cars" and other hot button issues. I'm fortunate that our location allows me to drive, bike or walk to work, depending on my schedule, the weather and so on. The closer-in Palisades are sort of an in between place- cetainly not a densely urban neighborhood, but not as suburban like the areas closer to the Maryland border.
by Potowmack on Feb 11, 2013 11:47 am • link • report
....
Those are two separate issues.
In theory, but not in reality. They're completely intertwined. Both with the HOT lanes, as well as on the DTR and the Greenway.
@ Walker:because building sufficient infrastructure to meet demand when infrastructure usage is free, will always mean spending more than is worthwhile.
No. Spending is constrained by the desire of the people not to pay taxes. Stuff paid for by tax money is not free.
Transit is not free, bridges and tunnels are often not free
Oh, don't worry. I am consistent. Those things are not free. And second, I'd like to see them without a user fee. So, yes, no metro fares, no tolls. Everywhere where "free" transit has been tried, it's been a huge success. It's how you get people out of their car.
@ drumz: And while it'd be nice to have infrastructure keep up with demand that's definitely not the reality we live with. Until we can use tolling to manage that demand.
Why not use the limit people want to pay in taxes instead?
@ Kyle-W:Why should my wife, who drives 2 miles to work, pay as much for roads as someone who drives 20?
Because infrastructure is not used only for personal travel. Infrastructure is the oil that keeps the economy going. Your wife may be lucky and live within 2 miles of work. Most of her colleagues do not. They need infrastructure to get there. Even stronger, without that infrastructure, her company cold not exist. Employees could not get there, and products could not be moved to customers.
And that's why everybody should pay equally through taxes.
the HOT Lanes are EZ Pass only, so no delays, and no toll-collectors.
Yeah, it's so easy and effortless, that a commercial party was introduced to handle that payments. A commercial party that requires me to mount a device on my car, set up and account and pay a monthly fee, even if I do not use the device. Extremely efficient - for the stockholders of Easy Pass.
@jtown:How do you people think we should allocate road space, which is a limited resource?
Infrastructure is more than roads. And infrastructure is not free. It is paid for by taxation.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 11:49 am • link • report
Well, considering how much money Transurban is losing, sounds like the giveaway was on their side. They gave away the cost of building the highway. All we had to giveaway was some land that was not going to be used for the foreseeable future. Right now, the people who should be most angry are Transurban shareholders as they appear to be the ones on the losing end of this partnership.
Wouldn't it be great if we could operate Metro the same way? Give a company the right of way, let them pay to build it, and then let them lose money each year on the operating costs. Then there would be no need for local governments to pay about $800M a year in subsidies to cover operating costs. That $800M could be borne by a private company.
by Falls Church on Feb 11, 2013 11:53 am • link • report
No. Spending is constrained by the desire of the people not to pay taxes. Stuff paid for by tax money is not free."
free to the user. and the desire to not pay taxes so that someone who lives in annadale or Springfield can buy a shirt in Tysons and drive home at rush hour in free flowing traffic, when they could have shopped closer to home, is quite reasonable in my opinion.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 11:55 am • link • report
No, in reality, they are separate. If you're arguing the concepts are intertwined in any given project, well of course - but again, that was not my point. The issues of PPPs and tolling are indeed separate.
We have examples of publicly-run tolled facilities as well as privately run and financed toll facilities.
We have examples of privately-run and financed facilities without user fees, too. And, of course, we have lots of publicly run and financed facilities without user fees.
by Alex B. on Feb 11, 2013 11:57 am • link • report
its a toll on a road that we are discussing - if you want a greater subsidy and lower fares on transit go ahead and make that case, but stopping HOT lanes wont get you there.
There are also people who dont think any more lanes were needed on 495 period. But again, thats seperate from the use of tolls to finance them.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 11:58 am • link • report
Not true. The contract is for 75 years, that is longer than the foreseeable future. Also, if they keep loosing money, VA has to pay them.
@ Walker:free to the user.
That user is also a tax payer. Hence, not free.
and the desire to not pay taxes so that someone who lives in annadale or Springfield can buy a shirt in Tysons and drive home at rush hour in free flowing traffic, when they could have shopped closer to home, is quite reasonable in my opinion.
Sure that is reasonable. But you silently make all infrastructure car-oriented. What is that person could hop on a train or bus and go to Tysons?
if you want a greater subsidy and lower fares on transit go ahead and make that case, but stopping HOT lanes wont get you there.
Yes it will. VA still contributed significantly to that project. That money would be freed up for other things. Transit for instance. What if we had given that space to WMATA?
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 12:16 pm • link • report
"That user is also a tax payer. Hence, not free."
Some taxpayers are NOT users of a given piece of infrastructure. Some users (from out of state) are not taxpayers in the jurisdiction. But more importantly, some taxpayers are disproportionately small users, and some disproportionately large.
"Sure that is reasonable. But you silently make all infrastructure car-oriented. What is that person could hop on a train or bus and go to Tysons?"
but again, we are discussing tolling a road. That is the policy question at issue.
"Yes it will. VA still contributed significantly to that project."
Which covered things like getting rid of the I66 left exit to the the beltway, and creating direct access from the beltway to the 395 HOV lanes, and improving the bridges over the beltway, that have benefits quite apart from the increase in capacity on the beltway.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 12:23 pm • link • report
by Alan B. on Feb 11, 2013 12:34 pm • link • report
Because infrastructure is not used only for personal travel. Infrastructure is the oil that keeps the economy going. Your wife may be lucky and live within 2 miles of work. Most of her colleagues do not. They need infrastructure to get there. Even stronger, without that infrastructure, her company cold not exist. Employees could not get there, and products could not be moved to customers.
And that's why everybody should pay equally through taxes.
My wife is not lucky and lives two miles from work, we made a conscious choice to locate 2-5 miles from hundreds of thousands of jobs. I am not arguing against infrastructure in the least, just that the people who use more of it, should pay for it.
I am happy to pay for infrastructure use that we use but don't pay for, such as deliveries. Charge an appropriate tax on delivery trucks and long-haul semi-trucks, and they will pass that cost on to me. To argue that I should pay for infrastructure use that has no benefit whatsoever to me (her co-workers commute to work) is absurd.
Taken to another extreme, the idea that someone who commutes from Winchester to Bethesda, should pay the same as my wife (likely less honestly, as they are paying more for gas to Exxon and Saudi Arabia, while I am paying more in property taxes to DC) is even more absurd.
by Kyle-W on Feb 11, 2013 12:38 pm • link • report
Since we've recently learned that the "number of cars in DC is declining" mantra is a misleading farce, if not a lie, I'd like to know what the actual number of cars including suv's is in DC and the increase. Maybe the increase in number of vehicles.
Maybe I was naive but I'd believed OP and DDOT's figures, assuming that maybe city-wide things were different than my neighborhood. Certainly around here most rear yards now hold a couple vehicles and they're crammed every place there's an empty 6'X 15' surface. But of course a large portion of them now are suv's.
by Tom Coumaris on Feb 11, 2013 12:40 pm • link • report
truckers can pay tolls, and pass them on to their customers, and so on down the supply chain. That gives consumers an incentive to consume less of those items that are most intensive users of peak time congested roads. Which makes sense.
"Your wife may be lucky and live within 2 miles of work. Most of her colleagues do not. They need infrastructure to get there. Even stronger, without that infrastructure, her company cold not exist. Employees could not get there, and products could not be moved to customers."
By charging for use, we not only incent more people to find alternate means, we also incent more people to find jobs close to where they live, and we incent firms to locate closer to their labor forces, where there are better alternate modes, and to make teleworking easier. And it incents consumers to use fewer of the goods and services where that is not possible.
I mean you could say the same things for ANY input - we should all pay for oil via general fund taxes, or steel, or whatever. Cause those things go into the products we use. The principle economic rationale for not doing so - that we lose the use of prices as inducement to rational decision making, applies equally to both.
Now of course where the infrastructure has low marginal cost relative to fixed costs, a different argument for not charging can be made - one that may well apply to transit. But does not apply to most highways in this region at peak.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 12:50 pm • link • report
Seems like the "stereotype" that GGW is white/male centric has stuck around. This could likely change once the contributors and community of those posting seemingly becomes more diverse. Even though it's the author's paraphrase, I believe race/class can "sometimes be" a distraction rather than concluding that such discussions are "often" distractions. There is a difference between invoking race/class to encourage discussion vs. using disagreements or fear wrt it as an excuse not to have discussion.
It's reasonable for Gray to consider changes in the CFO's role. We should allow our elected leaders to manage in the same way it happens in other cities.
Not surprised that Graham isn't stepping down nor the fact that he will continue to be reelected.
Hopefully Wells can get the support of his colleagues in ways that he's totally failed before now.
by HogWash on Feb 11, 2013 12:57 pm • link • report
Agree on most accounts. However, I see no reason to dispatch the CFO position. This is one thing that seemingly has worked very well. With the wildly competing visions of our council, I think an independent voice on revenue and expenses is invaluable.
I agree, race/class can sometimes be a distractor, but certainly isn't always. Whats bothersome to me is that people are willing, and often do CHOOSE to intentionally distract using race/class, which has a tendency to derail any progress that is being made.
by Kyle-W on Feb 11, 2013 1:02 pm • link • report
All arguments for a gas tax, not tolls.
but again, we are discussing tolling a road. That is the policy question at issue.
The direct question was why RedLine SOS would oppose all tolls. I gave my reason.
that have benefits quite apart from the increase in capacity on the beltway.
And you're not advocating tolls? Weird. Inconsistent.
@ Kyle-W:My wife is not lucky and lives two miles from work, we made a conscious choice to locate 2-5 miles from hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Not everybody is so lucky as to make that conscious decision. Me and my wife work 15 miles apart. One of use has to give in. Do you live equally close to work?
I am not arguing against infrastructure in the least, just that the people who use more of it, should pay for it.
Sure. Up the gas tax. I am with you.
Taken to another extreme, the idea that someone who commutes from Winchester to Bethesda, should pay the same as my wife (likely less honestly, as they are paying more for gas to Exxon and Saudi Arabia, while I am paying more in property taxes to DC) is even more absurd.
Why? You're getting to the whole reason of why I believe that infrastructure should be paid for from the general fund. Keeping track of every individual use of infrastructure would create a massive administration and bureaucracy. It is much simpler to just levy a tax. A gas tax for instance. Or a car tax by weight.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 1:17 pm • link • report
Me either. If the DC electorate continues to reelect a convicted crackhead/tax cheat in the form of Mr. Barry, why wouldn't they do the same for Mr. Graham.
by Vicente Fox on Feb 11, 2013 1:29 pm • link • report
No, I live 10 miles from my work, and drive. I should be paying more than her as well.
At this point, I think we are arguing the same thing. I thought you were saying all infrastructure should be funded from the general fund, with no user fees. A gas tax is certainly fair in this instance. I would be happy to see the national gas tax, and state gas taxes triple. Would serve so many purposes, and despite some initial costs, would long-term be hugely positive.
by Kyle-W on Feb 11, 2013 1:37 pm • link • report
Yeah, I know right. And to think his constituency represents many of those who should "know better" and criticize Barry along his w/his voters. Go figure.
by HogWash on Feb 11, 2013 1:47 pm • link • report
Re: Gray/CFO - Elected official wants to increase own power, reduce oversight is slightly less newsworthy than dog bites man.
by Jacob on Feb 11, 2013 2:07 pm • link • report
That is what I was and am saying. Roads, rail, bus, all "free", or tax funded.
A gas tax is certainly fair in this instance.
Of course, there should be taxes to fill the general fund.
A gas tax is the only thing that makes the idea of transit fares palatable. Of course with the difference that the gas tax does not cover the operating cost of roads, while most transit fares do cover the operating cost of transit.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 2:08 pm • link • report
All arguments for a gas tax, not tolls."
not at all. Someone riding on uncongested local roads, or riding at off peak times, is not creating nearly the incremental need for infrastructure that someone driving a congested road at peak is.
"that have benefits quite apart from the increase in capacity on the beltway.
And you're not advocating tolls? Weird. Inconsistent."
What? I dont think its techcially feasible to toll those micro segments, short of tolling the existing free lanes. The latter has benefits, but is certainly not politically feasible.
"Not everybody is so lucky as to make that conscious decision. Me and my wife work 15 miles apart. One of use has to give in. Do you live equally close to work?"
Many of us have unique circumstances in our lives that are costly. Not all such circumstances can be equalized.
"Sure. Up the gas tax. I am with you."
see above.
'Why? You're getting to the whole reason of why I believe that infrastructure should be paid for from the general fund. Keeping track of every individual use of infrastructure would create a massive administration and bureaucracy.'
but we dont need to do that, in order to prices particular pieces of infrastructure
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 2:19 pm • link • report
Hogwash, why exactly do you think DC should have a non-independent CFO? What do you see as the benefits of a non-independent CFO and/or what are the detriments of an independent CFO?
by 7r3y3r on Feb 11, 2013 2:29 pm • link • report
That's because we all have met the demand for that local rural road, but not for that busy road. In fact, that is a sign that we've wasted money on that rural road, and been overly stingy on our congested road.
I dont think its techcially feasible to toll those micro segments,
Have you heard of the HOT lanes, that are tolled by the mile with dynamic prices?
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 2:32 pm • link • report
No, because you need some minimum sized road to provide access. Road capacity is lumpy, you cannot always provide the exactly correct amount.
Plus there is the peaking issue, which is dramatic in this region.
"I dont think its techcially feasible to toll those micro segments,
Have you heard of the HOT lanes, that are tolled by the mile with dynamic prices?"
yes, but the shortest possible segment on those lanes is longer than the microsegment to get onto the 395 HOV lane. As for the I66 exit, that was free (if poorly designed) prior to the project, so the general bias against tolling previously free links would come into play.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 2:40 pm • link • report
The project did more than just add the HOT lanes.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 2:41 pm • link • report
Infrastructure development is the government's responsibility and they cannot and should not pawn it off to the private sector in order to create profit.
How well is the ICC working out? People are going to go with the free road every time. This was our land they gave away on a failed investment which handicapped future development.
Bottom line. Public land is for public use.
by Redline SOS on Feb 11, 2013 2:50 pm • link • report
If CFO's in other major cities aren't independent, we should look to make ours in line with theirs. If so, we shouldn't. Haven't looked nationwide enough in order to determine the pros/cons.
by HogWash on Feb 11, 2013 3:21 pm • link • report
Why are we providing access to people who choose to live remotely, while choking the roads where people actually live? Why aren't we tolling the roads that are underused, and therefore less needed?
but we dont need to do that, in order to prices particular pieces of infrastructure
We already have it. It's called EaZy Pass. And NC Quick Pass. And ExpressToll. All kinds of different systems with different boxes and different accounts that are utterly incompatible with each other. Not to mention the mess it leads to for rental cars.
the shortest possible segment on those lanes is longer than the microsegment to get onto the 395 HOV lane.
Which will be tolled soon when the HOV lanes turn into HOT lanes.
@ Redline: I agree with you on the gas tax, but I also believe some general fund dollars should be used.
I never said the gas tax shouldn't go into the general fund.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 3:34 pm • link • report
They are not all incompatible with each other:
http://www.wral.com/nc-quick-pass-to-link-with-widely-used-e-zpass/11918237/
Drivers with an NC Quick Pass soon will be able to use the transponder in states that accept E-ZPass, the most widely used electronic toll collection system in the country.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation announced the change Thursday, saying the agreement was struck to provide greater convenience for customers. E-ZPass holders will also be able to use their transponders in North Carolina.
The link takes effect Jan. 3.
by Alex B. on Feb 11, 2013 3:42 pm • link • report
Why are we providing access to people who choose to live remotely, while choking the roads where people actually live? Why aren't we tolling the roads that are underused, and therefore less needed"
We have not chosen to limit where its possible to live (at all) by not providing any paved roads in certain places. If you want to make the case that we should by all means go ahead.
However having once done so, the incremental cost of adding a vehicle is small (and is well covered by the gas tax). However the cost of adding capacity in dense areas is very high.
And again, there is the issue of off peak usage, which you continue to ignore.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 3:48 pm • link • report
Yeah yeah. So far, you need a special VA Eazy Pass to be able to use the HOT lanes as HOV lanes. No way that's gonna work with a NC Quickpass.
@ Walker:However the cost of adding capacity in dense areas is very high.
Not per user. An extra Beltway lane would be used much more than a road to Barrow, AK.
there is the issue of off peak usage, which you continue to ignore.
It is true that there is no peak usage in rural areas.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2013 4:40 pm • link • report
You need the special transponder if you want to toggle the ability for the high occupancy part. If you know that you'd rather pay then you can use the regular one.
by drumz on Feb 11, 2013 4:43 pm • link • report
It is true that there is no peak usage in rural areas."
???
There is peak usage on the beltway. Off peak, the beltway generally is free flowing. The need for the new lanes is generated by peaks (both rush hour peaks, and the occasional non rush hour peak).
Why should someone who uses the beltway peak only, pay for the additional lanes via the gas tax?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2013 4:52 pm • link • report
Everywhere where "free" transit has been tried, it's been a huge success. It's how you get people out of their car.
Yes, it's why Edmond, OK has such a robust and useful public transportation service.
There are a few places where it has been wildly successful but Tallinn is the only major city with free transit.
by MLD on Feb 11, 2013 5:15 pm • link • report
That's because most cities prefer to keep building roads, wasting infrastructure tax money.
by Jasper on Feb 12, 2013 10:13 am • link • report
Not gonna disagree with you there but even in your beloved homeland transit agencies have recovery ratios similar to the US.
People make mode choice decisions based on convenience as well as cost. Transit fares in the US are already inexpensive compared to the cost of owing and driving a car. Isn't that why poor people take transit? People who don't take transit overwhelmingly don't do so because they find driving more convenient - $2 a day isn't going to change their minds.
In places where transit is successful it is because transit is convenient AND lower-cost than driving - because driving is so much more expensive than in the average US city.
by MLD on Feb 12, 2013 10:24 am • link • report
I know that in 2005, when the bike plan was written, that Palisades had the highest bike commute rate in the city. They're right next to the CCT and C&O Canal, so it makes sense.
by David C on Feb 13, 2013 12:06 am • link • report
Add a Comment