Please, please, please!

STOP repeating the incorrect information about rest
areas on Interstate highways generally and in Virginia
in particular.

Rest areas on the "free" Interstates are restricted
by federal law to being just that - rest areas. The
turnpike service plazas in on I-95 in Maryland and
Delaware are there because that section of 95
is a toll road, and the restrictions imposed by
federal law do not apply. But those restrictions do
apply to "free" I-95 south of Baltimore in Maryland,
hence no turnpike-style concessions at the large rest
areas on I-95 between Laurel and Columbia.

Same situation on the N.J., Penna., and Ohio Turnpikes.
They were not built with Interstate system federal
dollars, and even though most of them carry an
Interstate route number, they are exempt from
the federal restriction on providing fuel and food
and other services.

Delegate Marshall is asking the right people, that
would be the Congress, to allow turnpike-like concessions
at Virginia's rest areas, since that's where the change
would have to come from. Presumably the President would
have to sign-off on such a bill as well.

by c p zilliacus on Jul 16, 2009 8:29 am • link • report

cp: I realize that. The issue in the article was that Marshall is asking for a temporary suspension, while I think a permanent suspension makes more sense. I've tweaked the wording slightly to be more clear.

by David Alpert on Jul 16, 2009 8:33 am • link • report

those parking numbers are very suspicious. First, they are in US dollars, so there is a tremendous currency distortion. Norway has an expensive currency, India has a cheap one. Second, are they measuring on-street parking, or garages? Third, is that central business district parking or throughout the city?

by charlie on Jul 16, 2009 8:55 am • link • report

Temporary is always easier to get passed than permanent.

But, yes, permanent makes more sense. How can Virginia get anyone signed up if after a year they may have to leave?

by ah on Jul 16, 2009 8:59 am • link • report

@ charlie: Let me confirm that parking in Amsterdam is very expensive. There is a waiting list for residents to get a parking permit. Pricing is hard to determine because every 'ward' gets to set its own pricing. Hourly rates on public parking go up to €3,80.

The main problem is simply space. Amsterdam was built as a trading city with the canals being the main transportation routes, not the roads. Now that all warehouses have been transformed into housing, and canals aren't used for transportation anymore, there is simply no place to create parking. Especially considering that every warehouse has been transformed into one apartment per floor. Most buildings have four floors. It would not be possible to put the cars of all owners in front of the building on the street. Underground isn't an option either since Amsterdam is a swamp, with groundwater levels barely under the surface. Anything you stick underground will simply float up. Just google the problems they have building a metro line.

Aside from that, Amsterdam is a very socialistic city. Conservatives here have no idea what socialism really is - Obama would be a center, perhaps even right-of-center guy there. The city is currently led by the labor party and the greens (who are a merger of the progressive evangelicals, communists and pacifists). Especially the greens have absolutely no issue raising parking rates to ridiculous levels. They have tried to create special bonus rates for 'large polluting cars': Hummers, SUVs. Arguments are space, pollution, noise, safety and a slant towards biking (=healthy living) and transit. Hard to argue with in a city built like Amsterdam.

Some wards have even enacted a ban on new parking spots. While they encourage new indoor places in new buildings, they will take away those spots from outside parking.

by Jasper on Jul 16, 2009 9:47 am • link • report

Personally, I prefer to have rest areas that aren't cluttered up by commercialism. I also consider them to be a needed safety factor for the Interstate and don't mind them being funded by the DOT budget. So it annoys me that Virginia (and other states too) are even considering shutting them down.

by Froggie on Jul 16, 2009 9:48 am • link • report

I forgot to say that Amsterdam does have a very good transit system, of streetcars, buses and a metro line. The second metro line is being built (by now three times as expensive as planned, because the tubes keep floating up).

by Jasper on Jul 16, 2009 9:50 am • link • report

On the Purple line, I don't see why the way he framed the argument shound cause you any consternation. I understand your argument of not giving up 'ground' on the argument, but McCartney avtually does the opposite right in the title. He might have turned the phrase more artfully by saying "chop a tree, save the forest". I think it's also smart taking on the deforestation argument head on, because that's the opposition's best argument, and he says it's the exact opposite, just in not so straight forward language.

I love the old buildings are green and lovable buildings are even greener point. I think this line of attack against the modernist stranglehold on architectural schools has some traction. It's like the Republicans' dominance of so many arguments in the last decades by dictating the terms of the debate. Modernists coopt terms such as, 'modern' and the pejorative understanding of 'style'. Modern is "of today" but people like Roger Lewis glide seamlessly between Modern being of today and being his preferred style, to which he preferres "formal language" or some other full of crap euphamism. But I digress. If they actually focused more on beauty )in schools) instead of the theoretical discussions they hide behind, architects in practice might actually promote greener buildings by the mere fact that they would be more lovable. This wouldn't necessarily preclude modernist buildings, (who dosen't like a bit of glass and steel now and then) but it's clear the market for that style is much smaller in proportion to what are referered to as traditional styles when you compare the output of architectural school work.

by Thayer-D on Jul 16, 2009 9:54 am • link • report

@Jasper, you know you can put weights on those tubes so they don't float. :)

by Michael Perkins on Jul 16, 2009 9:56 am • link • report

How about that union asking the public, seemingly, to look the other way when Metro employees are shirking their duties (pretending that this is somehow a matter of "respecting" the operators)? Pathetic.

There's a reason many people are so strongly anti-union. If the Post had any guts, these shameful quotes would be a front-page story.

by CP on Jul 16, 2009 10:00 am • link • report

What irks me most about the rest stop closures is that it will save VA $9 million out of a $2,700 million transportation budget shortfall. Honestly, WTF? We are talking 0.33% here.

by NikolasM on Jul 16, 2009 10:03 am • link • report

CP, I agree with you about the union.

My job pays me to do a job, and I do it. Certain things are restricted, like texting, reading for fun, and sleeping. The union should be grateful to anyone finding people NOT doing their jobs tarnishing the union's image. Maybe the union shouldn't be supporting those people, and only supporting the ones that do their jobs day-in and day-out every day.

by Erik on Jul 16, 2009 10:07 am • link • report

@jaspar; I'm not arguing that parking should be cheap; I'm just saying that chart is bogus. You example of parking at 3.7 euros a hour about matches what the chart says (70 dollars a day, or 2.9 dollars an hour for 24 hours) although I don't know if the rate you are quoting is for all 24 hours (for example is there free parking at night, for instance).

Just to give some comparison, the new privatized chicago meter rates are now about $2 an hour. That 90 cents less than a'dam, without the compact size, canal, no underground parking, and dense transit networks. Oh, and, yes, the private parking lots have increased their rates as well.

I'm all for increasing parking rates -- it is the most effective way to stop people from driving -- but where I have problems is most advocates of increasing parking rates tend to be fronting for companies that want to get into the collecting parking fee business.

by charlie on Jul 16, 2009 10:14 am • link • report

Is there a reason for political resistance to lifting the ban on Interstate highway service areas? Objections from the truck stop lobby? In any case, I hope the repeal goes through. Contra Froggie, I don't see this as an issue of "commercialism"; I think service areas are way more useful than rest areas, because you can buy gas and food at them.

by Josh B on Jul 16, 2009 10:59 am • link • report

@ Michael Perkins: I do, you do. But the engineers Amsterdam hired apparently don't. BTW: physically, they will always float, just a little lower is you weight them down.

@ charlie: I am not necessarily agreeing with what's happening in A'dam. Just confirming that parking is ridiculously expensive. I don't really care what parking rates are. I care that there is a good alternative to driving. There is in Amsterdam. Less so in large chunks of the DC area. I am always against allowing governments to delegate money-collection to other companies. It is principally wrong.

by Jasper on Jul 16, 2009 11:00 am • link • report

Erik, CP--

Maybe many on this blog agree with you about unions (although I do not! Not by a long shot), I am not sure you can say everyone in the area, in the region, or the nation does.

It's easy to tap into resentment. I feel it too. The challenge is not to let it overpower the good that things like unions achieve.

by Jazzy on Jul 16, 2009 11:02 am • link • report

Josh B -- Yes, that's exactly the problem. Since the ban was put in place 40 years ago (I think) a bunch of people invested in reliance on the ban--lots of gas stations and mcdonalds right near, but not on, the highway. Arguably this is a better way, since it reduces visual clutter on the highway itself. But regardless, these stores have developed off the highway in recognition that it's the most convenient location that's not *on* the highway itself.

So now if you switch the rules all these people (whether small or large) have spent money on their stores/hotels/gas stations will see someone else swoop in for the preferred real estate at the rest stops.

by ah on Jul 16, 2009 11:31 am • link • report

Jasper -- why is it wrong to delegate money collection? If DC (or anywhere) decides that meters should be higher priced, what does it matter if DC or a private company collects those fees (obviously DC gets its cut either way).

Indeed, given the corruption in DC government, I'm not sure having a private company collect from the meters isn't better, since they'll be cutting one big check every month (or quarterly) that's a lot easier to keep an eye on than a bunch of coins.

by ah on Jul 16, 2009 11:33 am • link • report

I think the biggest problem with allowing gas and food at rest stops is you take a ton of money away from the small towns that grew up around interstate exits. Also, with toll roads you can only go to service stations unless you want to pay to get off and back on. On interstates you have the option of turning off at any exit for food/gas (hence the businesses at those exits).

by Nick on Jul 16, 2009 11:34 am • link • report

The union asked riders to be respectful. The union did not defend texting, cell phones while operating, covering windows or other abberant behavior.

There has been an uptick in cursing at the operators, banging on the window behind the operator and other distracting behavior. Let's remember that 99.9% of the operators are dedicated to their jobs and move hundreds of thousands of people safely each day.

In the two accidents that involved fatalities to passengers, the first in 1982 was when a train operator was directed by a supervisor through an incorrectly set switch. In the second, last month, the operator was killed after applying emergency brakes after a failure of the automatic train protection system.

Another operator was killed at Shady Grove station when, during a snowstorm, they were refused permission to operate manually. The train, operating in ato, slid through Shady Grove station and plowed into another train. The automatic train protection system failed because it did not take into account icy conditions.

There is genuine outrage among train operators that a few individuals doing extremely stupid things have reflected poorly on all of them.

I believe that Jackie Jeter was trying to remind us all that the vast majority of train operators should be respected for the job they do.

by kreeggo on Jul 16, 2009 11:37 am • link • report

@ah - That's true about the businesses that lose out. My question is, are they actually an effective lobby in Congress? I think most of those local gas stations and fast food restaurants are franchised, so Exxon or McDonald's doesn't have a lot of reason to lobby against service areas. And there are other groups-- concession operators like HMSHost, for example-- that would stand to gain from service areas-- not to mention state governments (who get new revenue) and drivers (who get a new, convenient option).

by Josh B on Jul 16, 2009 11:49 am • link • report

@Nick - I'm not sure if you're endorsing those arguments or just stating them, but harm to incumbent businesses is a terrible reason to block new avenues of competition. In New York State, liquor store operators have used this argument to block wine sales in grocery stores (which 35 states plus DC currently allow), saying it would cost them profits and jobs. Never mind that supermarket wine sales would generate tens of millions of dollars in net new annual tax revenue, create jobs in the supermarket sector, and increase convenience for shoppers.

by Josh B on Jul 16, 2009 11:51 am • link • report

@ah; I could be wrong but I thought meter collection is DC was already run by a private company.

There is a difference between collecting the money and setting rates. Never the less, when you see private companies bidding for that work, look for the rats. If a private company can make money off it is, a government should be able to as well, and usually these contracts are part of some corrupt bargain.

by charlie on Jul 16, 2009 12:07 pm • link • report

Charlie -- I think you're right, and the distinction between collection and rate setting is an important one.

However, the fact that companies are clamoring to provide the service could also suggest that the government doing the collecting is so inefficient that the private sector could offer a better "price" for collection and still make gobs of money.

To the extent price-setting is handled privately, I think it has to involve public oversight of some sort, but can't be done purely publicly, both as a contractual matter and because the private company likely is able to collect a lot of useful data that could shed light on what the "right" rate is.

by ah on Jul 16, 2009 12:13 pm • link • report

Josh B -- I think they can be, especially when they start bugging their local rep.

As for McD's, sure, they could sell another franchise (if the distance limits aren't a constraint), but I think a lot of franchisors like to preserve the franchise value, which they don't if they sell out by letting anyone buy a franchise anywhere.

Also, I don't think that the issue really is competition. Nothing prevents another franchise from setting up just off the exit ramp (or very close to it). Entry isn't restricted. The question is whether they can enter "anywhere" or anywhere but the highway. That's different from NY liquor stores, where entry is restricted to a certain business format.

by ah on Jul 16, 2009 12:16 pm • link • report

@ ah and others: The reason is that a private company is in it for the money only, and is not accountable to the people. The government is. You can not blame the government for the folks in it. That's the mistake of the people.

Fundamentally, I believe that collecting money from the people for the people is one of the very few very basic tasks of the government. If you believe that a government can outsource collecting money, than I would argue that in line with that, we can replace the entire executive branch with a management company. The executive branch only executes, right? No reason for politicians there. And now I am thinking about it, why not the judicial branch as well? They only apply the law. The law is neutral, so why not just outsource it to a bunch of lawyers?

We don't for the very good reason that we the people want to keep "our" government accountable to us. Not to some contract that is full of hidden fine print.

by Jasper on Jul 16, 2009 12:29 pm • link • report

Not so, Kreeggo. She's quoted as saying this: "Being watched 24/7 is a problem. I don't think any of us would like that."

If that's accurate, it's disgraceful. There's nothing wrong with watching Metro employees as often as possible, and to state there's a problem with that seems to suggest that these unionized employees feel they have something to hide.

by CP on Jul 16, 2009 12:52 pm • link • report

@ CP: I disagree. The fact that you don't have anything to hide, does not mean that you have to be watched 24/7. Train operators have a public position, so they can not object to being observed, but the public has a responsibility to being respectful to any "misbehavior" the think they see. The general public is not more trained that the operators.

by Jasper on Jul 16, 2009 1:53 pm • link • report

FWIW, I got the text change in the Comp. Plan from suggesting TDM be considered in PUD matters, to requiring it.

But that was a small small win, because I advocated for its requirement in most building regulation-planning-zoning matters, for everything except single family/flats. So I consider the TDM requirement for PUDs to be not much more than a sop...

I did submit an amendment to the Comp. Plan for this, in the recent collection of amendments. We'll see if it goes anywhere. I would argue that the way that the Transportation Element reads in the Comp. Plan that they have the authority to require TDM planning, but the OP and the DDOT don't interpret the language the same way I do.

by Richard Layman on Jul 16, 2009 2:25 pm • link • report

There was someone on Twitter last week who said the station manager at Eisenhower was asking people not to take pictures of operators, this right after the stink over the sleeping and texting operator videos.

by Jeff Q. on Jul 16, 2009 3:57 pm • link • report

CP: Here's the rest of the quote that you left out:

"I ask them (the public) to be just as vigilant," says Jeter. "But I also ask them to be just as supportive of the operators when they do something good, as well as when they do something bad. The majority -- most operators -- do their job and they do what they are supposed to do."

When you pick and choose the quotes that you want to focus on, you can mislead yourself and others. You certainly have a right to your opinion--but it is more credible if you don't take quotes out of context.

by kreeggo on Jul 16, 2009 4:29 pm • link • report

kreeggo -- I have a bone to pick w/you about your letter (you know where). Why did you advocate for metro expansion outward, what we would call line extension, without calling for intensification and addition of capacity in the core, such as the separated blue line and the separated yellow line (suggested in GGW, that I am starting to think is worth considering)??????????

There is no real way the system can be easily extended without simultaneously planning for expansion of capacity in the core.

by Richard Layman on Jul 16, 2009 5:15 pm • link • report

Richard: You are correct in your analysis and I think it's a legitimate criticism of a very short letter.

The purpose of the letter was to help advance the debate over what to do next--a subject that has been explored at great length (and hopefully will continue to be) on this blog. Gerry Connolly's bill does not include any study of core capacity although I have raised the issue with his staff.

Dulles rail is under construction and hopefully the Purple Line will advance--although it's still at least two years away from beginning construction . There are no other concrete plans to expand the system currently--although there are many ideas. The time from conception to completion is incredibly long and we need to advocate to move the process forward. In my opinion, the next step is to actually begin some studies on environmental impact and alternatives including the issue of expanding core capacity.

by kreeggo on Jul 16, 2009 5:59 pm • link • report

Agreed. But expanding at the core is more important than extension. Many of the areas for proposed extension are best served by railroad service, not the WMATA fixed rail system. They won't generate significant numbers of trips within the catchment area of the WMATA Compact, so it's probably not a good investment of scarce $ for WMATA service.

Do you know about BeyondDC's ideas for a multi-state railroad system? I can't say I've extended his ideas, but I have amplified them...

This is as good an entry as any: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/06/regional-transportation-planning-and.html

And of course GGW is not the only place where these kinds of ideas are discussed... My concepts for thinking about the national transportation network and various subnetworks go far beyond the typical discussion of these issues, e.g., http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2008/05/thinking-about-transit-network.html

By putting numbers to those ideas, we can have a framework for making decisions on what type of transit best fits the needs and demands and opportunities in particular kinds of places, rather than just apply a one size (WMATA subway for the most part, but also light rail) fits all model.

by Richard Layman on Jul 16, 2009 8:09 pm • link • report

Thanks Richard. I'm a fan. There are others, those of us who appreciate your common sense, knowledge-in-action, and that you're not afraid of work. (Just wish you'd make your blog more user friendly!)

by Jazzy on Jul 16, 2009 8:54 pm • link • report

I am not requesting a temporary exemption. The only parliamentary way in Congress at this point to get a vote on this important matter is to amend the Transportation Appropriations Act to suspend the law so a state can start to issue RFP's.

COngressman Wolf is going to offer an amendment to the Transportation bill Friday morning, July 17. This afternoon, Governor Kaine sent a letter to the Chair of that House subcommittee.

For a reason I do NOT understand, COngressman Perriello is OPPOSING Congressman Wolf's effort to keep Virginia's rest areas open.

Your immediate action is needed!

AAA Mid Atlantic wrote Congressman Wolf (July 16):

“This issue is already resonating among the motoring public and the trucking industry. In fact, a growing number of motorists have expressed alarm about the decision to close the rest areas and to cordon off their entrances.

In our view, there is no question that the safety of motorists will be negatively impacted by the closing of rest areas in Virginia. The problem goes well beyond the need to use restroom facilities. Long haul drivers need to stop to rest, drink caffeine, change drivers, etc. If they do not have a convenient option they may drive when they are too tired to do so.

Nearly one-third of drivers (28%) say that they have nodded off or fallen asleep while driving a vehicle, according to extensive research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

It is estimated that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year, resulting in an estimated 1,500 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses, as reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In fact, NHTSA reports that twenty percent of crashes and twelve percent of near-crashes were caused by drowsy drivers.”

Please contact Congressman Perriello and urge his support of the Wolf Amendment.

Washington DC office (202) 225-4711; Charlottesville (434) 293-9631; Danville, (434) 791-2596; Farmville (434) 392-1997.

Rep. Perriello is on the House Transportation Committee.

Delegate Bob Marshall (703-853-4213 cell)

by delegate bob marshall on Jul 16, 2009 9:08 pm • link • report

Jazzy -- I met a guy working on a project in Pleasant Plains called freedom summer, and we discussed information architecture issues (among other things) and he had an intriguing idea for restructuring the content if I were to shift to a website from just using the blogger website as a server.

http://www.freedomsummer.us/wiki/index.php?title=Pleasant_Plains/Shaw/Columbia_Heights_South

But yeah, my blog will always be somewhat "crippled" because of the philosophy behind what I write. I want to be thorough, and I don't want anyone to be able to significantly challenge something I write because it's glib or poorly thought out or poorly constructed. Alas, that makes the entries very long.

you (and others) are welcome to send me suggestions for how to improve what I do: rlaymandc@yahoo.com

And apologies to DA for discussing this within his blog.

by Richard Layman on Jul 18, 2009 9:14 am • link • report