Just give McDonnell two seats. The world won't come to an end and funds will be available.

K

by Kaleel on Jun 18, 2010 9:30 am • link • report

I also don't think it's that big of a deal if McDonnell gets two of the four seats. I like that NoVa's had local control, but we'll still have two local members.

What's particularly frustrating about it is the extortion appearance created by the unnecessary rush for a decision in a month. There's no reason this couldn't be planned for next summer so everyone could discuss and debate it first.

by Joey on Jun 18, 2010 9:36 am • link • report

If McDonnell is threatening to renege on Northern Virginia's share of funding, I don't trust anyone he would appoint to act in the best interests of Northern Virginia's riders (as opposed to the state's interests).

by Dcster on Jun 18, 2010 9:41 am • link • report

If McDonnell is threatening to renege on Northern Virginia's share of funding, I don't trust anyone he would appoint to act in the best interests of Northern Virginia's riders (as opposed to the state's interests).

Right. There is absolutely no question in anyone's mind (from any jurisdiction) that the capital funding is sorely needed.

by Alex B. on Jun 18, 2010 9:45 am • link • report

Regarding the Michael Dresser article, I absolutely agree with the necessity of wearing a helmet when you ride. Yes a helmet might be awkward and might mess up your hair but it is a better alternative than scrambling your brain. I've been commuting to/from work 3-4 days per week on my bike and the foolishness of people who ride without helmets is bad enough but people will do this at night to or run red lights without helmets. Even if you're a competent, experienced cyclist, the person in the car next to you talking on their cell phone might be much less capable.

by Ben on Jun 18, 2010 9:46 am • link • report

I think you're being generous to think that McDonnell would appoint people who would think of the state's needs. He's going to appoint someone like the way Bush appointed John Bolton Ambassador to the UN, i.e. someone itching for petty political fights who has no real vested interest in the success of the agency's mission.

by Reid on Jun 18, 2010 9:47 am • link • report

It's really none of my business, because I don't live there, but the difference between local funding and state funding is so artificial to me. All of the money came from the citizens of Northern Virginia. It's their money. They should get to decide who oversees the spending.

by jcm on Jun 18, 2010 9:48 am • link • report

Apparently nobody in Northern Virginia voted for McDonnell and he wants to exact his revenge on the voters there. But I wonder which part of the state generates the most tax revenue for Virginia.

by aaa on Jun 18, 2010 9:48 am • link • report

No, aaa, actually a lot of NoVa voters voted for him. Were they fooled into thinking they weren't voting for a the-Civil-War-had-nothing-to-do-with-slavery wingnut? Probably.

by Reid on Jun 18, 2010 9:52 am • link • report

This is the ultimate consequence of wanting the government to fund operations that are really local. This plays out everyday with "federal" funding of local projects. The federal money come with caveats (rules) that must be obeyed to get the money. Historically these rules resulted in projects that harmed bicycle/pedestrian accommodations and everyone complained about about how mean the feds were.

This is the ultimate challenge in our Democracy. The temptation grows to have the Federal Government fund more and more local costs (police, teachers, roads) because the federal government can print money (hence our obscene debt). Same goes for "state" funding for local needs. Our society is not having an honest discussion of this issue.

OF COURSE these people will want a say in how the money is spent. We reap what we sow. Good luck with your 2 new southern Virginia reps overseeing northern Virginia transit.

by Bill on Jun 18, 2010 9:53 am • link • report

I don't really agree with a lot of Dresser's conclusions in his article on bicycling, but I greatly respect his reporting and his willingness to fully engage in the bicycle transportation issue. He really is setting a high standard on the transportation beat, and to have somebody like that at the Post would be wonderful. His perspective would have been valuable during the Penn Ave bike lanes mess.

by darren on Jun 18, 2010 10:04 am • link • report

I think Dresser misses the point of helmets. He proposes requiring them on highways, where the main dangers to cyclists involve motor vehicles. Helmets aren't designed to take an impact with a car, they're designed to take a 12mph impact with the ground (essentially, falling over from a mounted position). Faster than that and they crush, leaving little to protect you.

Sure, I where a helmet. I expect it to help a little when I screw up and endo. I don't expect it to help if I'm hit by a car.

by Ron Alford on Jun 18, 2010 10:05 am • link • report

Is there a particular rush to get fares in place by a certain date. The article cites a cost of $800,000 to change fares. Does this include overtime? If things are delayed by a week, does the overtime cancel out the increase of money coming in?

This bill character has a point. Ask the state for money, and there are consequences. That being said, this move by McDonnel is fiendishly clever. Makes me respect him in a way I never could for that bumbling idiot Tim Kaine.

by charlie on Jun 18, 2010 10:07 am • link • report

@aaa According to this article, Northern Virginia encompasses 7% of the landmass and 1/3 of the population of the state. It generates half of the tax revenue, and gets back between 25 and 40 cents on the dollar it sends to Richmond.

by jcm on Jun 18, 2010 10:14 am • link • report

@charlie: Yeah, the earlier the fare increases go in place, the better WMATA's budget situation is. Even $1M in overtime costs is a drop in Metro's $800M fares bucket, and a small price to pay for the $109M fare increase to be a success.

A lot of this must be one-time costs since the new fare designs (higher cash than smartrip, peak of the peak) are novel. Next time those options will already be designed, so the softward development will be changing the numbers rather than creating and testing the logic.

And maybe next time the Board won't spend an hour or two hours during each meeting discussing exactly how late they are and what the consequences of being so late will be, like they did this time.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 18, 2010 10:27 am • link • report

I am glad to see that Gov. McDonnell and those in the Virginia Republican Party are totally in favor of ensuring they receive representation in exchange for their tax revenue.

I look forward to seeing them all at the next D.C. voting rights rally.

by Adam Lewis on Jun 18, 2010 10:28 am • link • report

It's kind of funny to hear Mort Downey's concerns about McDonnell's proposal considering he got his seat through essentially the same hardball money politics. The feds bought permanent EXTRA seats on the board. Virginia just wants to redistribute the representation of its existing seats.

by Lou on Jun 18, 2010 10:29 am • link • report

@jcm: News flash: states have prosperous and not-so-prosperous areas. Sometimes, the not-so-prosperous ones depend on the prosperous ones.

Sounds a lot like the Georgetown secession "movement." We pay taxes, so we should get back exactly what we put in. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that's not how taxes work. If you paid the government for the exact services you used, they'd be fees, not taxes. Parents who send their children to school would have to pay tuition, for example.

by Tim on Jun 18, 2010 10:31 am • link • report

@Michael_Perkins; $109 increase in fares mean a projected 2 million more a week. But it looks with the staggered nature of these increase, and delay in parking, that for the first two months it will well below those $2 million figures. So delaying it a week might equal the money the new fares bring in.

WMATA employees have long histories of screwing up overtime. And do we really need Facebook and twitter feeds on fare increases information?

by charlie on Jun 18, 2010 10:44 am • link • report

@Tim Calm down pal. aaa asked which part of the state generates the most revenue and I told him. I don't need you to explain to me how taxes work.

by jcm on Jun 18, 2010 10:50 am • link • report

Employee bikes at the Canadian Embassy is great, but it'd be even better if they sponsored a bikeshare station that both their employees and the public could use. Plus, Bixi is a Canadian company!

by Gavin Baker on Jun 18, 2010 12:12 pm • link • report

Sure there are poor areas that need help from the richer areas but to only get 25% of what you put in is garbage. A floor of 60-65% would be nice. We wouldn't have nearly as much to bitch about around here then.

by NikolasM on Jun 18, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report

I too like Dresser and feel that he does a good job of covering cycling, but I respectfully disagree with his call for a bicycle helmet law. To support it you would have to

a) Prove that helmets improve safety (their is evidence that they can protect cyclists in slow speed falls, but not in high-speed crashes with cars)

b) Make the case that the government should force people to do something that is ONLY in their own interest even if they don't want to. Once you state this as your position it means requiring people to floss, wear sunscreen, wear helmets in the showers (lots of people fall in the shower, quit smoking, etc... Or you could define some line above which the Government can require personal health and safety behavior and below which they cannot. At which point you have to show that bike helmets are above this line, but all of those other things are not.

by David C on Jun 18, 2010 12:37 pm • link • report

Forgot to link.

by David C on Jun 18, 2010 12:38 pm • link • report

@David C. -- there are mandatory seatbelt laws and, as the article notes, mandatory laws that motorcyclists wear helmets. Even at a slower speed (less than 15 mph) the asphalt is pretty unforgiving if you hit your head against it.

Admittedly, many of the crashes where bicyclists get hit by drivers probably results in bodily injury.

by Ben on Jun 18, 2010 1:43 pm • link • report

@David C-- This comment is also from the Wash Cycle post from the link you provided. Even if you're a very experienced cyclist, there are many other reasons that can lead to a crash/fall such as wet pavement, mechanical failure, or squirrels running in front of the cyclist. It is unfathomable that given how hard the pavement is and how important the brain is to living a normal, functioning life, you wouldn't want to take as many precautions as possible to protect yourself.

"Whatever the stats may be I just did a face plant on the Mount Vernon trail on Bike to Work day. It was about 5:30 PM. I was going 20+ grabbed my water bottle with my right hand and a squirrel ran in front of me. I tried to evade it with my left hand only on the brake hood. I inadvertantly turning my wheel all the way to right, the next thing I know I was doing a face plant on the asphault. My lips and my helmet visor hit. I think the visor kept me from breaking my nose, my lips are still swollen. I suffered no head trauma, but would likely have had trauma if I hadn't been wearing a helmet. Stats may be debated, but I will never ride without a helmet. I've been bike commuting for 1.5 yrs/18 mls each way about twice/month (Mar – Oct). This is the first time in my life I've ever needed a helmet. I thank God for His kindness and the helmet for the additional protection that kept this accident from being much worst. I was able to get up, check out the bike and myself and ride the 16 remaining miles of my commute."

by Ben on Jun 18, 2010 1:51 pm • link • report

@Ben.

Seatbelts are different in that they prevent passengers from becoming projectiles that could harm others, and keep the driver in front of the steering wheel so that they can regain control of the car.

I don't support helmet laws for motorcyclists either.

It is unfathomable that given how hard the pavement is and how important the brain is to living a normal, functioning life, you wouldn't want to take as many precautions as possible to protect yourself.

So then, do you wear a helmet when you walk across the street? If it is truly unfathomable that you wouldn't want to take as many precautions as possible to protect yourself then surely you must.

I suffered no head trauma, but would likely have had trauma if I hadn't been wearing a helmet.

Though I would rather have a helmet on in this situation, there is absolutely no way they know that this is true.

Furthermore, I am not arguing against wearing helmets. I'm arguing against helmet laws. Just as I would never say you don't need to wear sunscreen - but still would not support mandatory sunscreen laws.

by David C on Jun 18, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report

"The public has an interest in minimizing the resources directly involved. From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job; and, if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume responsibility for his and his family's subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned."

by jcm on Jun 18, 2010 2:48 pm • link • report

How does an Idaho Stop work at a 4 way stop sign?

I'd imagine if no other traffic were at the intersection, then the cyclist could treat it as a yield sign ... But if other traffic has gotten to their stop sign before the cyclist gets to theirs, then the cyclist should stop ... I would think. So, does that mean that a 4 way (or 3 way) stop sign gets treated like a traffic light (do a real stop at it) ... unless the coast is completely clear ....?

I'm asking 'cause as a driver, it's really pretty iritating to be waiting your turn at a stop sign ... and then have a cyclist come blasting through ... and effectively setting the whole sequence off ... I mean the guy in the car who was next in line, suddenly loses his turn 'cause some jerk on a bike comes up from behind and takes the guy's turn ... The driver will then usually try to go anyways, but the next car in line will have already started by then ...

I dunno ... Someone mentioned to me the other day that the problem isn't 'cars' or 'bikes' or 'streetcars' but rather 'when you start mixing all kinds of traffic'. His point was that each has its own set of rules that are natural to it, and each can work well alone ... But the minute you start mixing them, you end up with choas ... Interesting thought given what's been happening what 4 way stops ....

by Lance on Jun 18, 2010 3:16 pm • link • report

The Idaho Stop never allows any cyclist to blast their way through. It just lets the cyclist slow down to a near-stop, and then, if they have the right of way to proceed, they can continue without stopping fully. It just lets an almost-stop count as a stop.

The cyclists should always stop if pedestrians are trying to cross. If it's a 4-way stop and cars or other cyclists are waiting to go the other way, the cyclist also has to stop, or if it's a 2-way stop and there are cars or other cyclists coming on the main street, the cyclist also still has to stop.

by David Alpert on Jun 18, 2010 3:19 pm • link • report

I think that Ehrlich had better recognize that he is doing more harm than good by openly opposing these projects, because if he does not, this could be an unsuccessful campaign altogether.

by C. R. on Jun 18, 2010 3:57 pm • link • report

@ C.R. "...this could be an unsuccessful campaign altogether." If by "unsuccessful" you mean an Erlich defeat, there may be a lot of people who consider that a "successful" outcome to the campaign.

by Bianchi on Jun 18, 2010 4:47 pm • link • report

jcm, I am aware of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the state's right to require motorcyclists to wear helmets. I disagree, but I recognize it is law. But the same ruling would allow states to require drivers to wear helmets and NASCAR style flame retardant jump suits. Do you think that would be wise policy? Saying that states CAN pass these laws is very different from saying they SHOULD.

And I disagree strongly with the justification. That same argument could be used to allow the government to reach into many parts of your life - including everything from what you may eat and what kind of prophylaxis you need to wear during sex. This is not a slippery slope argument by the way, I'm just saying that the "well if you make the wrong decision, society will pay for it, so we can protect you from the wrong decision" argument is basically an argument against freedom. If you aren't free to do things that other people think are stupid, you really aren't free at all.

by David C on Jun 18, 2010 5:04 pm • link • report

The government already does reach into what you may eat and what kind of prophylaxis to wear during sex. For example, you can't buy french fries fried in partially hydrogenated oils at restaurants in Montgomery County, or unpasteurized milk in Maryland, or (except for very minor exceptions) unpasteurized almonds anywhere in the US. And the FDA approves contraceptive medications and devices.

by Miriam on Jun 18, 2010 7:09 pm • link • report

McDonnell should get half the WMATA board's Virginia seats when he gives Northern Virginia half the state's federal highway funding.

If his argument is that the DC mayor gets a spot, then the Virginia governor should get just one.

by Omar on Jun 18, 2010 10:41 pm • link • report

Miriam, it is still totally legal to eat french fries fried in partially hydrogenated oils. It is just not legal to SELL french fries fried in partially hydrogenated oils. It seems like a minor differentiation, but in the first you are doing something to yourself and in the latter you're doing it to someone else. The same goes for milk and almonds.
As for the contraceptive medications and devices, the FDA does approve some of these, but you aren't required to use any - and in fact can use non-FDA approved condoms (they just can't claim to be a contraceptive).

by David C on Jun 19, 2010 12:56 am • link • report

Coming out openly against the Purple Line is political suicide for Ehrlich. The Purple Line will link 4 legs of the Metro with dense communities in between many which are aging and ripe for redevelopment. The Purple Line will allow for additional building in Downtown Bethesda and encourage office development in Silver Spring while revitalizing decayed Long Branch and Langley Park. The Purple Line is essential to the redevelopment of lower Montgomery County into a transit-accessible urban community. Efforts to delay the line by Ehrlich would be disasterous and jeopardize federal funding. Plus his argument that there is not enough money means that he thinks ALL transportation projects are unaffordable, including roads. I do not believe this regressive candidate has a chance this year. His day is over.

by Cyrus on Jun 20, 2010 2:22 am • link • report