Conversely, the bizarrerie of the petulance of the teabaggers envisioning transit-as-thrill-ride should demonstrate to some extent that monorails aren't "kiddie rides", but transit infrastructure deserving to be considered as such.

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 17, 2009 5:19 pm • link • report

I think there is some value to the overtime debate, perhaps they should just hire more employees to cover some of those costs. However that would not save the proposed 70 million that metro pays in overtime. At best case it would save 1/3 of that or about 23 million. That figure however does not consider the costs of benefits and such.

by matt on Sep 17, 2009 5:42 pm • link • report

Neither Delegate candidate says much but I don't like Keam's position to widen 66.

Salisbury is just being dumb. If they open a bus depot wouldn't it come with a bathroom in it? Thus eliminating the need for them to go to a store?

by Canaan Merchant on Sep 17, 2009 5:48 pm • link • report

IÂ’ll throw out my dream network for HSR in North America: http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/300/hsrmapfrom2050base.jpg

by NikolasM on Sep 17, 2009 6:05 pm • link • report

Also, I don't want to make any sort of judgement on the people who have committed suicide via train but if you're really set on killing yourself can you do it in a way that doesn't totally disrupt 1000's of peoples lives and trauma to those unfortunate enough to witness the event?

by Canaan on Sep 17, 2009 6:31 pm • link • report

To prevent suicides on our futuristic monorail, I propose suicide booths.

by Gavin Baker on Sep 17, 2009 7:46 pm • link • report

The problem in Tyson's is not just density, but tenant mix. Every time I eat there, always feel like I'm going to get served by a waiter who's been reprimanded for not wearing enough pieces of flair.

by David on Sep 17, 2009 8:18 pm • link • report

You know, there may be something to the monorail/Disney theory. I seem to recall a Post article a year or two ago on tourists/Metro/escalators and one of the tourists they quoted did actually compare it to a theme park -- at least the escalator part.

by Mike B. on Sep 17, 2009 8:46 pm • link • report

To be honest, when I was growing up and visiting Washington, riding the Metro really was like going to Epcot.

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 17, 2009 8:52 pm • link • report

One thing to consider is that Hyland would caucus on the (R) side of the house, potentially giving the control of all committees and the speaker to folks that have traditionally opposed any and all forms of letting Northern Virginia tax itself to improve transportation. Those committees and especially subcommittees vote down most legislation that would increase the gas tax or other proposals to provide more funding for transit. In subcommittee, the votes aren't even recorded so there's no way to tell who's responsible for the block.

I hate to be all rah-rah-rah for one side, because the Democrats sure have their flaws, but until the GOP learns that it can be a reasonable position to allow people to tax themselves to buy things the free market doesn't provide on its own, that's something I consider when I vote, no matter the individual candidate you're also helping every other elected member of that party.

Additionally, 2010 is census year, so I believe this is the year you elect your delegates that get to vote on the next gerrymandering plan (Senators are already picked). Much as I hate the practice, it looks like VA isn't going to be doing it in a non-partisan way anytime soon, so would you like it done as a bi-partisan "incumbent protection" plan, a "pack and crack" plan benefiting one side only, or what?

The GOP got to choose the last time, in 2000, which might explain why a state that has two (D) senators, and a (D) governor, and went (D) for the presidency has 7 GOP and 4 Dem congressmen.

by Michael Perkins on Sep 17, 2009 10:06 pm • link • report

On the Hyland v. Kean contest, Kean's campaign website at least has a decent description of his take on the congestion issue. Hyland has four sentences.

Hyland:
http://www.hylandfordelegate.com/issues/transportation/

Kean:
http://www.markkeam.com/issues.htm#1

by Peter on Sep 17, 2009 10:17 pm • link • report

Mr Brady (R-TX), who complains about the lack of Metro service for his teabagger fans, hasn't exactly been looking for funding for the system. Quite the opposite.

Just another lazy lout looking for something for nothing. Expecting someone else to pay for his constituents' welfare.

If you won't pay for the system, Kev-boy, don't bitch about the service.

by Mike S. on Sep 17, 2009 11:35 pm • link • report

Maybe Mr. Brady has a point.

Even if he disagreed with spending federal dollars on Metro, and voted against it, should he have an expectation that the money be spent well? Probably. Maybe he's just arguing that for the money that the Federal Government spends on Metro, it appeared that Metro wasn't doing a terribly good job of it.

The Federal government for the most part does not give transit systems money for operations, only for capital.

The Federal government has given Metro more than enough money to buy trains, tracks, signals, structures and other equipment to run better service than they do on the weekends. It's not for lack of Federal dollars that Metro service is cut back so much on weekends, it's for lack of local subsidy support and fare revenue.

He did vote against federal dollars being spent on operating expenses. If there were federal dollars available for operating expenses, what do you think the result would be? Would we have better service, or just lower fares and lower local government subsidy?

Just because Metro obtains federal dollars for operating or capital doesn't guarantee that the money would be in addition to what we're already spending. Sometimes it just substitutes.

California had this problem when they started the lottery to benefit education. The money was supposed to improve the education system, but what probably happened was that the state government just shifted money away from education, leaving the system just as bad.

by Michael Perkins on Sep 17, 2009 11:54 pm • link • report

Belay my last, the Democratic party controls 6 out of 11 congressional seats in VA. I had forgotten that Perriello defeated Goode, and Nye took over Drake's seat.

It's still pretty Gerrymandered, though. Take a look at VA's 8th, or the 3rd:

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html#va

by Michael Perkins on Sep 18, 2009 6:12 am • link • report

Ah, yes, the 3rd, Bobby Scott's district. It was ruled unconstitutional at least twice, but it hasn't changed much since then. Nevermind that huge swathes of it constitute a single shipping lane.

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 18, 2009 9:34 am • link • report

If you're really set on killing yourself can you do it in a way that doesn't totally disrupt 1000's of peoples lives and trauma to those unfortunate enough to witness the event?

Right, because if there are any two less compatible phenomena it's solipsism and suicide.

by ibc on Sep 18, 2009 9:59 am • link • report

RE: Brady Letter to WMATA

Personally, I agree with everything in that letter. There's not one thing in there that doesn't happen on a daily basis, and I'm sure few would argue that.

...But, of course, the catch is *why* that happens. In my opinion, WMATA should just be forthright & honest: we did very little because we can't afford to do very much.

by Bossi on Sep 18, 2009 10:01 am • link • report

I find the argument a little odd that one is not allowed to criticize the particulars of a governmental activity, unless one first offers full-throated and wide-ranging support to said activity. Besides, how much of Metro's woes are philosophical, managerial and political in nature. Lack of "full funding" is a convenient crutch for WMATA and its apologists, just as it is for many public school systems. And I find WMATA's pout that no one contacted them about the rally to be rather silly, but alas, typical of the bureaucratic mindset in public agencies. Heaven forbid they would read the papers. Rally customers aside, Metro owes it to its regular Saturday customers (local taxpayers and voters all) not to have a service meltdown.

by Paul on Sep 18, 2009 10:08 am • link • report

Paul and Michael,
But you all miss the point that extra service costs extra money and it will be LOCAL taxpayers footing the bill for these jackasses from Texas. Organizers of other events pony up for the extra service so why shouldn't the ANTI-TAXATION crowd?

Plus the irony of complaining about a government-provided service is really rich. They all should have taken cabs if they're so into the free market.

by lou on Sep 18, 2009 10:40 am • link • report

I find the argument a little odd that one is not allowed to criticize the particulars of a governmental activity, unless one first offers full-throated and wide-ranging support to said activity.

Sure, just like the grannies protesting against government socialism in healthcare by waving signs around saying "Keep Government out of Medicare." Given the general reaction, I think the idiocy of the anti-Metro position is pretty manifest.

Rally customers aside, Metro owes it to its regular Saturday customers (local taxpayers and voters all) not to have a service meltdown.

There was no service meltdown. There was essentially a backup the type of which you see all the time with Nationals games, international soccer matches at RFK, etc...

The difference is that *this* particular crowd are a bunch of whiny-assed titty-babies with a hideously metastasized sense of entitlement. That's why they feel they're being personal attacked--no, that the very Constitution of the United States is at stake--when they have to pay their taxes, or when they can't step directly onto a Metro train after protesting any expenditures which aren't direct pork payments to whichever suburban/rural municipalities they come from.

Finally, I don't see WMATA pouting anywhere. They were just pointing out a rather obvious fact--which is that any even organizer with their head not firmly ensconced in their rectum takes the time to collaborate with area service providers.

Especially when expecting a crowd of 1.5-2 million anti-government Tea Baggers.

by ibc on Sep 18, 2009 10:42 am • link • report

@Michael--

Regarding the third district, it's a minority-majority district designed to take in majority-black areas around both Richmond and Hampton Roads. Creation of such districts where feasible is required by the Voting Rights Act, and is also a practice strongly supported by black Democrats, as without them there would likely be little minority representation in Congress. But the districts will always be oddly-shaped, and they are also always very heavily Democratic, making the surrounding districts relatively more Republican. In any case, no matter who controls the Virginia legislature, the next map will include a district very similar to the current 3rd.

As for the 8th, it's oddly shaped, but it does link communities of similar demographics-- that salient includes Tysons Corner and Reston. You could redraw the map to give some of this territory to the 10th, and put the eastern part of McLean in the 8th, which would make the 10th (a Republican-leaning swing district) slightly more Democratic, but it wouldn't be a huge effect. Recutting Northern Virginia to create three Democratic leaning districts would be possible, but it would likely require a map less compact and logical than the current one, with Arlington split between two CDs and Alexandria in a third, each one taking in a wedge of outlying suburbs.

by Josh B on Sep 18, 2009 11:08 am • link • report

There were less than 100,000 Tea Partiers. There was also the Black Family Reunion that day too, so perhaps metro should have been on top of it.

by цarьchitect on Sep 18, 2009 11:15 am • link • report

Odd that the BFR attendees were able to get to and from their events with a minimum of self-pity and perceived victimization, no?

by ibc on Sep 18, 2009 11:19 am • link • report

Seconded, ibc.

Metro was crowded on Sat., but I've seen worse on the 4th of July, for other protests, and even on some game days. The estimate of 50,000 teabaggers is generous. Good thing, too, since the organizers of this event clearly didn't bother to do their homework when it comes to making sure the PUBLIC transportation system could handle their numbers -- like PAYING for extra trains.

by Banksy on Sep 18, 2009 11:21 am • link • report

@JoshB: This is the "packing and cracking" I was talking about. The third attempts to pack as many like-minded urban voters into a single district, so they have no choice but to vote for whomever wins the (D) primary. Likewise with the 8th. Outside of these two districts, small populations of likely (D) voters are split and put in large districts of likely (R) voters.

Those interested in these strategies are encouraged to try out "The Redistricting Game"

http://www.redistrictinggame.com/

Is that what we really want our democracy to be? The results of elections less decided by the people going to the polls as the lines drawn on a map?

I'd rather the districts be compact, respect the boundaries of very small jurisdictions, splitting larger jurisdictions when necessary. For example, in the 8th, why is McLean/Langley excluded? How about the other area inside the beltway?

by Michael Perkins on Sep 18, 2009 12:59 pm • link • report

Plus the irony of complaining about a government-provided service is really rich. They all should have taken cabs if they're so into the free market.

If they really were worth their salt, they'd bunch their undies over not being able to operate their own private rail cars on gummint-owned rails. It's just like the highway, right?

by ThresherK on Sep 18, 2009 6:07 pm • link • report