Oil-industry hack/academic fraud, Robert Poole, also comments about this policy in the National Journal forum. Mr. Poole is a transportation shill at Reason Foundation, an allegedly libertarian lobbying group. Poole is fine with (indeed advocates strongly for) subsidies for aircraft owners (http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-reform-new-55) and the use of public funds to build more highways (http://www.governing.com/column/king-road). Yet Reason is rabidly opposed to transit (beyond token support for bus rapid transit), high speed rail, and bicycle infrastructure (arguably our most cost-effective mode of transportation). It is well known that Reason Foundation, Inc. is funded by the oil industry (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation) but Robert Poole would even make the Iranian mullahs and Saudi princes proud.

by Ben on Mar 26, 2010 10:41 am  

The Party of Doom also got into the act last week, mindlessly criticizing Secretary LaHood's policy shift towards treating bicycling and walking as equal to other modes of transportation: http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/03/24/lawmakers-ridicule-bike-projects/

by Ben on Mar 26, 2010 10:44 am  

Shifting money to bikes seems pretty stupid if it comes at the expensive of transit. I can understand why people get upset when federal highway money is spent on things other than roads. However, the argument that transit gets people off roads seems pretty powerful to me. Outside of WMATA and a few other cities, transit is codeword for "bussing poor people" rather than what we have here.

The irony, of course, is that the original push to get the federal government involved in roads came from bicyclists.

Investing in multimodal seems to be the low hanging fruit and should be the real federal priority now.

by charlie on Mar 26, 2010 11:00 am  

Isn't that area (the bridge) acreage where extra train sets for MARC and VRE could be stored? Have they taken that necessity into consideration?

by Redline SOS on Mar 26, 2010 11:00 am  

@Redline SOS: The area where that bridge would be built are thru tracks of the Metropolitan Branch. I don't think you could store trains there without building more tracks and I don't think there's that much room.

I wonder that if the MBT was completed as far north as Rhode Island Avenue sooner and the bridge was in place if the Safeway would have survived. Of course, it was a dump...

by Jason on Mar 26, 2010 11:08 am  

IIRC Reason had a speaker who said that we do not need to expand our highways but instead by relaying upon 'driverless' technolgies to increase the efficencies of existing freeways... in a speech given at their headquarters a few blocks away from the I-395 truncation.

by Douglas A. Willinger on Mar 26, 2010 11:15 am  

Glad to see Andy Clarke pointing out the economic costs of epidemic inadequate physical activity. It is perplexing that the Manufactures aren't concerned with holding down the costs of their own health insurance plans by encouraging a more healthy workforce in ways that cost them nothing; by supporting local policies that improve ability for walking and biking. There is so much evidence of the reduction in health costs/absenteeism and increased production associsted with just 20 minutes of walking a day (compared to less then that or none). There's a whole movement among larger employers to improve the employees health for just this reason. For instance where I work the vending machines no longer carry candy and chips. Only dried fruit, peanuts and granola bars. It's a 'bottom line" decision to do that! And also eliminating temptation aids people in their efforts to make goods choices for themselves. This was not done without the consent of employees.

by Bianchi on Mar 26, 2010 11:16 am  

How does a survey of bicyclists provide any reliable information about whether the zig-zags slowed traffic? All it will get is anecdotal information about outlier instances of drivers going too fast and not stopping.

Why does VDOT not look at accident data and whether there were any changes relative to other crossings without zigzags. Or, better, they should have installed some sort of speed-measuring device beforehand to see if there was a meaningful change.

by ah on Mar 26, 2010 11:17 am  

@ah, getting the perspective of road users is important. Perception of safety is a very important factor in whether or not a person chooses to ride or walk instead of driving (if they have a choice). What the survey will likely return is a perception overall of whether its easier to cross the road now or not.

by Bianchi on Mar 26, 2010 11:21 am  

Glad to see that pedestrian bridge at Rhode Island Ave is being built where people are crossing the tracks anyway. The station is now built so that pedestrians have to go up and down a whole lot of stairs to avoid the train tracks, so of course people just cross the CSX tracks instead--SO dangerous!

by Elizabeth on Mar 26, 2010 11:48 am  

So why wasn't there a bridge over the tracks connecting to the station in the first place; considering how many people use to go through the hole in the fence over to the CVS, Safeway etc rather than going across the ramp then down to Rhode Island Ave then back up the slop it would have been common sense to build it.

by kk on Mar 26, 2010 11:52 am  

@ Redline

While there is room available there, that whole area used to be a rail yard anyway, MARC and VRE have other plans to increase train storage capacity.

MARC plans to use a newly constructed 'wedge yard' that will be in the vacant space, in a wedge shape no less, just to the west of the intersection of NY Ave and Brentwood Parkway.

VRE is adding a storage track outside of L'Enfant that will let them use L'Enfant as a terminus for a few trains rather than running every train to Union Station.

by Mainland on Mar 26, 2010 12:13 pm  

You have to understand the perspective of the National Association of Manufacturers. Their focus is on the transport of raw materials from producer to manufacturer and the transport of finished good from manufacture to market. Spending a lot of money on bicycle infrastructure has virtually no impact on either of these things, so NAM is naturally going to not favor spending on them.

by ksu499 on Mar 26, 2010 12:56 pm  

"America relies on trucks to move 70 percent of our nationÂ’s freight tonnage and the trucking industry is forecast to move an even greater share of freight in the future."

Seems like a really good reason to invest in freight rail, not build more highways.

by Adam L on Mar 26, 2010 1:12 pm  

@ksu499, doesn't the NAM have members who provide health insurance benefits to their employees? Don't those employees have families who are affected by the obesity/diabesity/inadequate activity epidemic? Of course they do! If NAM could see what affects their costs of doing business they would naturally embrace policies that lessen the burden on their own health insurance policies.

by Bianchi on Mar 26, 2010 1:23 pm  

Three cheers for a walkway at Rhode Island Metro! The presentation is very amusing -- I like how it takes them until Page 10 to admit that the current situation is inducing hundreds of Metro passengers every day to risk death trying to get across the tracks.

by tom veil on Mar 26, 2010 2:54 pm  

Re: Infill

That NYT article was very interesting. Parking lots obviously do not belong in Manhattan, and it notes the problems with Corbusier-style projects (isolation, dead space, disrupting the street grid) while also looking at the ways changes are affecting residents (views, neighbors, community resources). Still, I can't imagine complaining about the loss of a hideous empty lot!

by Matthias on Mar 26, 2010 3:06 pm  

"Still, I can't imagine complaining about the loss of a hideous empty lot!"

Because in Manhattan, lots without buildings are reletively rare and privide a break, though I would imagine that a garden would be so preferable to a parking lot.

by Douglas A. Willinger on Mar 26, 2010 3:30 pm  

@Mainline, Redline

I think the fact that VRE is creating a (just one) storage track over at L'Enfant is a good argument for thinking about capacity at the yards north of Union Station. It is great that VRE is willing to think creatively, and L'Enfant offers a lot of connections, but obviously this is a compromise which VRE cannot build on - there is just not space over there, unless they have some plan to store trains along the tracks heading toward the Virginia St. Tunnel...

Given that MARC and VRE both clearly want to expand over the long run - a good bit - it is reasonable for someone to be thinking about preserving the land along the Redline / Met Branch Trail / CSX for train storage, even if we cannot imagine coming up with the money needed to build the yards at present.

On the other hand, there is a wide ROW up there. Its hard to tell, but I am guessing that the bridge approach and footings will be within area which DCDOT is currently fencing off. This leaves a lot of land to be used for rail in the future. It seems like a decent compromise to me.

As for the train being stored at L'Enfant - this is just a lack of storage, correct? Or is it a lack of capacity in the 1st St Tunnel?

by DavidDuck on Mar 29, 2010 5:49 pm  

@DavidDuck

My understanding is that it's a storage issue. If you combined MARC and VRE into one carrier that offered through-routed service, you'd have a bit of a bottleneck with the First Street tunnel if you were to increase service, but you'd solve the storage issues immediately.

by Alex B. on Mar 29, 2010 6:35 pm  

Through service would help, but even SEPTA - which I think probably operates more through service than any other transit agency - still uses some significant downtown storage. Given that 1st St Tunnel only has two tracks, and other constraints on the system, I think DC will need real storage downtown.

In the near term though - would MARC service be better if they used more of the tracks at Union Station for trains, as opposed to storing equipment needing repairs, private cars, and such?

by DavidDuck on Mar 30, 2010 7:16 pm