This is sickeningly wrong. Why, Bryant, why? The extra connectivity would have been lovely.

by Mike on Jul 8, 2010 12:23 pm • link • report

So, did the Urban circulator win or not? The title and first line don't agree.

by David C on Jul 8, 2010 12:32 pm • link • report

So it seems that all the funding for this project which had been assured by it's proponents wasn't quite so assured after all. Shocker.

It sucks that this funding may have been undermined by NCPC. But it wouldn't have happened had these issues been addressed sometime in the last ten years instead of while we were laying tracks.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 12:33 pm • link • report

+1 to Jamie. This is bush league politics and DC FAILED.

by crin on Jul 8, 2010 12:42 pm • link • report

Jamie hit the nail on the head...

and "DC has even less incentive to work with NCPC".

DC doesn't have a choice. NCPC has overriding authority across large swaths of the city. Perhaps if DDOT would get their act together, not leave fundamental issues to the last second and then try to blame "anyone" for having the temerity to ask them questions, DC wouldn't have this problem.

by nookie on Jul 8, 2010 12:44 pm • link • report

Instead of playing politics, can we get back to facts?

How much was the grant for? (I went through the archives here and could not find a dollar amount)

Did it meet any of the FTA qualifications?

by charlie on Jul 8, 2010 12:45 pm • link • report

"...Preston Bryant asked the FTA to deny this grant because of NCPC's concerns with overhead wires... even though the streetcar segment the grant would have covered lies outside the overhead wire ban."

This is, I think, the main problem. This grant was for a segment of the city that does not have a ban on overhead wires, so as far as I can tell, the letter was totally out of line.

by Ashley on Jul 8, 2010 12:49 pm • link • report

According to Tommy Wells, it would have been a $25mil grant.

I also fail to see how this is entirely DDOT's fault, given that NCPC also waited 10 years before blackmailing the project mere weeks before the final verdict on the grant was in.

Similarly, why the hell does the NCPC have authority over a project outside of the L'Enfant city? Do they *want* the H St corridor to remain a burned-out, riot-torn former shell of itself? In a few years, those burned out shells will officially become *historic* burned out shells. And that's just sad.

by andrew on Jul 8, 2010 12:52 pm • link • report

" NCPC also waited 10 years "

Wait, so this is NCPC's fault for reacting to tracks being laid, instead of DDOT's responsibility to realize that their massive streetcar project plans is in violation of a law, and that might need to be addressed sooner rather than later?

Umm, OK. Let's blame the police too, for not predicting crimes before they happen.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report

DDOTs streetcar plans for Benning Road were not in violation of the law. There is not and never has been any law against overhead wires in the part of the city this line would have been built.

Keep repeating that to yourself until it sinks in.

by BeyondDC on Jul 8, 2010 12:58 pm • link • report

@Jamie:
Tom Cruise says
Get some Precogs. Not a big deal.

Sent from my iPhone.

On a serious note, lack of grant money doesn't prevent this line from happening. Though maybe if the money had come through, DDOT would have been able to address NCPC's issues a bit better.

by kidincredible on Jul 8, 2010 1:00 pm • link • report

Be that as it may, you can't just look at the project's components in isolation. They pissed off the wrong guy. Right or wrong, politics is an extraordinarily important part of a project of this scale, which DC/DDOT seems incapable of fathoming.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 1:00 pm • link • report

@andrew, thanks. Looking through the grant lists it looks as most of the urban circulator grants are in that range.

Looking at the grant notice, what I don't see as part of review process is "how many cars it will take off the road" or "how much it will reduce vehcile traffic" as criteria. I think both are valid questions.

by charlie on Jul 8, 2010 1:06 pm • link • report

+1 to Ashley

If Bryant would have written the letter (in his personal capacity) to argue funding for the L'Effant portion of the line, less people would be upset (myself included). The fact that he acted unilaterally to fight funding of the extension East of the River based on an irrelevant argument is the issue.

by Matt on Jul 8, 2010 1:08 pm • link • report

Jamie is an idiot

by dontedc on Jul 8, 2010 1:09 pm • link • report

Apparently y'all don't read GGW enough...

This segment has been in planning for > 10 years, it's nobody's fault per se. NCPC flexed it's muscles and we lost a grant, a grant that was never assured.

DDOT has done an impressive job at proactively working with all stakeholders, NCPC waited till the last minute to actually say anything, they have been approached, and they've been quiet until this guy from Richmond spoke up...

by S.A.M. on Jul 8, 2010 1:10 pm • link • report

"streetcars in Charlotte, Cincinnati, Dallas, Fort Worth, and St. Louis"

Can anyone say + REDSTATES +

Gees Obama and friends why don't we also give a few more defense contracts to the good ole boys as well....after all these are the folks who are working hard with Mitt to keeps Dems in office -not

by Elephant in the Room on Jul 8, 2010 1:13 pm • link • report

It can't be said enough:
NCPC didn't "do" anything. The chair of that organization acted without authority to mislead a federal agency. He should be removed from his position for this unethical if not illegal behavior.

by Reid on Jul 8, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report

>politics is an extraordinarily important part of a project of this scale, which DC/DDOT seems incapable of fathoming.

That's a much more fair statement than your earlier posts.

>Can anyone say + REDSTATES +

Texas, sure, but North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri are all solid battleground states.

by BeyondDC on Jul 8, 2010 1:27 pm • link • report

Also, while I don't agree with Elephant (Ohio and Missourri aren't "red" states) I do think we're getting screwed by an agency that is afraid of spending money on DC projects. The mall is an embarrassment, but a Republican successfully blocked repair by labeling the effort "money for Washington lawns". We got screwed on the K St. transitway funding too. It's obvious that the FTA is afraid of having toothless yokels complain about federal money being spent on the federal city.

by Reid on Jul 8, 2010 1:30 pm • link • report

"Jamie is an idiot"

A compelling rebuttal.

"DDOT has done an impressive job at proactively working with all stakeholders"

Absurd. NCPC formally voiced concern about this over two years ago. There's not a single google hit that I could find for "streetcar ncpc" older than that, which is hardly compelling evidence of any planning involving NCPC prior to two years ago.

May 7, 2008 - NCPC: Any planned streetcar line within historic Washington that features overhead power lines would violate federal law

Sept 2009 - (for H street) "The city is looking at "innovative new technology," Lisle said, including a streetcar that switches from overhead to battery power. "We're not going to ignore the law," he said."

"The Business Journal reported earlier this week that DDOT also plans to pursue federal funding, contrary to previous plans."

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report

"NCPC: Any planned streetcar line within historic Washington that features overhead power lines would violate federal law"

The key word there is HISTORIC. Unless I am mistaken, the area this grant covered is not considered "historic", nor is it protected by any other relevant restrictions.

by Ashley on Jul 8, 2010 1:37 pm • link • report

ok indluge in a little hyperbole... I'm not happy !!

But Boehner is from the white burbs part of that Ohio and will remain forever ...to me that is a dealbreaker.

by Elephant in the Room on Jul 8, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report

@Ashley, as I said before, you can't just separate out pieces of this. The H Street line is itself at the heart of the conflict. This is politics. I don't like what NCPC did, but just pointing out that this one piece of the line isn't at issue while ignoring everything it's connected to, isn't really important to the overarching problem and lack of planning that caused it.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 1:40 pm • link • report

re: failure on DDOT's part. Hardly. This was a very competetive grant program. $300 million for the whole country is not a lot of money and many (literally dozens)worthy projects applied for funding unsuccessfully. Remember the TIGER grants? USDOT received $59 billion in applications for $1.5 billion of available funding. I am certain that DDOT put together a strong application but they were edged out. I seriously doubt that streetcar plans in Saint Louis, Charlotte, Cincinnati, etc. are way more developed or "planned" than DC's. Not that those citys don't have competetent public servants. But I hardly think of any of them as bastions of cutting edge transportation policy or planning. Plus, there are vocal and equally irrational anti-streetcar elements in all of those cities. I bet the antis on those cities are feeling pretty foolish right about now! Byrant's meddling certainly didn't help. Nor did the fact that we are not a swing state or have a House member in a tight race.

As for NCPC having "overriding authority over vast swathes of the city": read the law. It's very clear: NCPC's role is advisory and limited to federal buildings and the "federal interest." For issues beyond federal buildings, the Mayor and Council of DC are free to ignore their advice.

by rg on Jul 8, 2010 1:46 pm • link • report

Well, we really have no idea why this project was turned down. Like with all Federal grants, I am sure DDOT has already requested the comments made by the grant panel. It's very possible that their concerns had absolutely nothing to do with the NCPC but rather other concerns.

For example, DDOT was selling this portion of the line as a way to improve transit access to an under-served community. That makes sense for an area like H Street, that really was left off the transit map; however, if I were that random reviewer on the grant panel, I would immediately ask "but isn't there already a Metro station that provides transit access across the river?"

To likely any reviewer, D.C.'s transit options are far-and-away better than other places and they therefore might not see the city as being "in need". The other cities applying for funding likely have little-to-no transit options whatsoever, so providing them with the opportunity to get streetcars, enhance TOD, etc. is probably of much greater importance to the FTA.

by Adam L on Jul 8, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report

@Jaime, you can absolutely separate out the pieces in this situation. He wrote a letter targeting a specific grant funding a specific section of the line, and implied that this section would be affected by the overhead wires issue. The overhead wires issue does not have to be resolved for this specific line to be built.

As someone who writes grants, think of it this way: if someone wrote a foundation saying that my grant for program A should not be funded because program B is still having planning issues, that would be out of line.

I agree that this is politics, and I don't like the way this game is being played. Which is why I get to be pissed off about it.

by Ashley on Jul 8, 2010 1:49 pm • link • report

@rg, I don't know about the others, but Charlotte's streetcar system (which is in the very early planning stages) looks like it's a whole heck of a lot better planned than ours is. And they seem to be where we were in about 2000... they're a decade off (at least) from when they expect to be operational.

Go look at their web site. This web site is far better than anything we have today, and we're laying tracks!

If I was awarding money to people to build streetcars, Charlotte looks like they've got their act together and deserve the money. We don't. We don't even know how we're going to power ours yet.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 1:52 pm • link • report

@Jamie:
Incidentally, Charlotte has also already laid tracks.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12208406@N03/3017355140/

by Matt Johnson on Jul 8, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report

@ Jaime

Have you read DC's latest version of the DC Transit Future plan?

http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/About+DDOT/Publications/DC+Transit+Future

DDOT's new website with all the PDFs isn't the easiest to navigate, but every bit of information you laud Charlotte for having is in that DDOT report - and more.

by Alex B. on Jul 8, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report

Just so that it is on the record, here is the law re: NCPC and DC planning.

40 USC 8711
e) Principal Duties.— The principal duties of the National Capital Planning Commission include—
1) preparing, adopting, and amending a comprehensive plan for the federal activities in the National Capital and making related recommendations to the appropriate developmental agencies; and
2) serving as the central planning agency for the Government within the National Capital region and reviewing the development programs of the developmental agencies to advise as to consistency with the comprehensive plan.

40 USC 8712
a) Planning Responsibilities.— The Mayor of the District of Columbia is the central planning agency for the government of the District of Columbia in the National Capital and is responsible for coordinating the planning activities of the District government and for preparing and implementing the District elements of the comprehensive plan for the National Capital, which may include land use elements, urban renewal and redevelopment elements, a multiyear program of public works for the District, and physical, social, economic, transportation, and population elements.

Apart from federal buildings, NCPC is a paper tiger. Also, note that NCPC jurisdiction extends into suburban Maryland and Virginia. If Bryant persists in being an ass, then I think that DC elected officials should begin using their position on the NCPC Board to say, for example, that the overhed wires for the Columbia Pike Streetcar block views of the Air Force Memorial and the Pentagon and it is thus in the "federal interest" to stop that streetcar from being built. Similarly, the ICC will add pollution to the Anacostia, making it uglier to look at from the top of the Washington Monument, so the ICC needs to be stopped because it hurts the "federal interest."

by rg on Jul 8, 2010 1:58 pm • link • report

I stand corrected, it looks like they're planning to open the first 1.5 mile segment in 3 years (made possible by the grant). It also looks like they managed to get those tracks laid in about 6 months...

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 2:00 pm • link • report

@Alex B - I've been to the web site, and while I believe that there's a lot of information there, it's incredibly difficult to find something useful. Why no FAQ? Why no useful navigation for someone trying to understand the project at a high level?

That scrolly menu is real pretty and gives you links to facebook and twitter, hooray! No link to "streetcar" though.

Charlotte began planning their project about 5 years ago. Their web site has easy-to-find information on public meetings, development impact, project scope, and so on -- basically all the stuff that most people would want to know.

Oh yeah, and their Circulator Grant Application in full, along with copies of all the supporting documentation, are also available, in case anyone wants to see what a winning grant application looks like.

What's on our web site?

A copy of the April 2010 "Future System Transit Plan." Which causes my adobe reader to choke because of weird fonts.

Nothing else.

I'm sure some people will read that entire document and be able to get some of that same info from it. But why don't we believe that a $2B project is worth a basic web site? It just says "bad planning." If you have your act together, then transparency is easy and comes naturally.

Everything about this project says bad planning.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 2:09 pm • link • report

I was going to write something very similar to to what Adam L wrote, but he beat me to it (and probably did a better job than I would have).

While this is bad news for DC in the short term, it's still good for the country. Projects like these will show people from Dallas and Cincinnati and the rest of the cities what good transit can bring. Hopefully in turn they will shift priorities away from cars and more to transit, which will be good for everyone.

by Steven Yates on Jul 8, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report

Jamie: Sounds like all you're saying is that everything about the project says bad Web site design. Which I agree with. The DDOT site is atrocious. It's hard to believe it could be worse than the old one, but it is.

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2010 2:12 pm • link • report

@Jaime

Check out DDOT's Streetcar page:

http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/On+Your+Street/Mass+Transit+in+DC/View+All/DC+Streetcar

If you want to fault DC for poor web design, that's fine. The page is similar to all DC agencies. That doesn't mean there hasn't been any planning.

by Alex B. on Jul 8, 2010 2:15 pm • link • report

@rg, you're quoting 1 of maybe a dozen 'legislative authorities' under which NCPC operates. They're listed on their webpage, take a look at them. And yes, many of those apply equally to ALL areas around the country as they do to DC ... I can see a lot of opportunities for NCPC having a federal interest in the DC streetcar system here in DC ... just like it would if it were being built out by the battlefields in Manassas or maybe near Yellow Stone. It's not a home rule issue, and NCPC isn't only excercising its authority under the one section you quote.

by Lance on Jul 8, 2010 2:16 pm • link • report

I'm saying that bad web site content (not just design) is another symptom of bad project planning and poor transparency.

It is the only public-facing information about a $2B project. Don't you think a web site is, these days, a pretty important thing that reflects strongly on a company's overall competence? Don't you think that the people reviewing the grant applications would, also, be visiting these web sites before handing out 25 million bucks?

If dc.gov was selling products, you'd probably wonder what it was, and you certainly wouldn't buy it. As the only window on the operation of DC, it speaks volumes about our government's transparency and overall competence.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 2:18 pm • link • report

No, Jaime. The only thing that keeps on saying "no planning" are groups opposed or, at best, indifferent to the whole project. Yes, planning could be better, but this mantra of no planning is just a red herring from those that really just don't like the plans.

by Reid on Jul 8, 2010 2:19 pm • link • report

As much as I'd like to wish ill upon anyone within a 100-mile radius of John Boehner, I think that Cincinnati (and Charlotte, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and St. Louis) deserves congratulations for a promising design. (See http://www.cincystreetcar.com/route.html). While there are some parts of the proposal that I don't see an explanation for (such as, why don't they just stay on Vine for the entire route?), it will help anchor development in a city that needs a shot of revitalization even more urgently than DC does.

by tom veil on Jul 8, 2010 2:20 pm • link • report

@Rg...

Right off the NCPC homepage "Legislative Authorites"...

"The District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, known as the Home Rule Act, P.L. 93-198 (87 Stat. 774), and codified at DC Code §§1-101 et seq., designated the mayor of the District of Columbia as the chief planner for the city of Washington. As a result of the Home Rule Act, the District became responsible for its own planning, including social and economic development, land use, and housing and transportation policies. NCPC approves District projects in the CENTRAL AREA of the city, reviews and advises on other District projects and the DC elements of the Comprehensive Plan, in addition to reviewing and advising on amendments to city zoning regulations and maps.

"As someone who has lived in DC for decades, there is nothing "paper tiger" about the NCPC. The legislative record is filled with the carcasses of either outright canceled projects, or ones so mangled or delayed by the NCPC that they were unrecognizable."

Whether this funding was lost to a better proposal or politics is anyones guess, but everyone should walk away from this situation with the "ignore NCPC at your own risk" firmly burned into their minds.

by Nookie on Jul 8, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report

@Lance

Either way, Mr. Bryant was acting outside of his authority when misrepresented his own position as that of the NCPC, which hadn't even debated the issue.

I do think that Mr. Bryant's argument is fallacious in that his definition of "federal interest" would encompass practically anything and everything; it's the classic example of an argument that proves too much. Either way, if the NCPC really believes there is a legal dispute over the authority granted to it versus the D.C. government, then that is for a federal court to decide, not Mr. Bryant.

by Adam L on Jul 8, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report

Absolutely right! I don't like the plans.

I love the idea, though. But the plans clearly do not cover some major points on how to implement it.

There is a huge, gaping void between a project idea, and a plan to effectively implement it. It's entirely wrongheaded to dismiss critics as simply those who don't like the project.

The moment you stop listening to your critics is when you can be sure you will get it wrong. I love the idea. I will be a direct beneficiary, as I own a house within two blocks of one of the proposed lines. However, I will also be paying a share of all the money we spend on it as a DC resident, and I would be very saddened to see this project fail entirely due to lack of funding, or take decades to be finished, because it was mismanaged.

This isn't a bike lane. It's the biggest infrastructure project ever in DC, probably since the interstate highway bridges and tunnels. I don't think that it's a lot to ask that we proceed with slightly more skill than we have been on something that could burden us with debt for a generation.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 2:28 pm • link • report

Adam L, I don't know what you are basing your statements on, but the letter I read from Bryant was him speaking on behalf of NCPC's General Counsel regarding their opinion on DC Council's legislation. I think it is entirely appropriate for the chairman of a body to be the one to convey information of that sort. I don't know how that can be construed as Bryant acting outside of his authority. In fact, he is obligated to represent his General Counsel.

by Lou on Jul 8, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report

DC needs a supplemental website for the streetcar program much like Cincy's page. Then if people need more info, they can link the reports on the regular page.

Imagine if streetcars4dc.org was DDOT's page.

by kidincredible on Jul 8, 2010 2:33 pm • link • report

@tom veil - another excellent streetcar web site from Cincinatti, complete with google maps-plotted routes. How remarkably useful!

Can someone at DC.gov please take note? Powerpoint is so 1990's.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 2:34 pm • link • report

@Lou

The General Counsel, like Mr. Bryant, is just one person. One person that does not dictate policy recommendations at an agency; that's why there is an entire 12-person NCPC Board. Mr. Bryant should have submitted the GC's report to the members (which he apparently did not even mention to any of them), discussed it and arrived at a formal recommendation. Actions beyond that is overstepping his bounds.

by Adam L on Jul 8, 2010 2:42 pm • link • report

Adam, while I would generally agree with the theory behind what you're saying, in the case of a General Counsel they are not issuing policy recommendations. They are the sole abriter of legal matters, and I don't really think they're legal opinions are up for debate before the board.

If they issue a legal opinion, it's the obligation of the chairman of the board (any board) to advocate on their behalf.

by Lou on Jul 8, 2010 2:48 pm • link • report

Lou,

The Chair didn't even share that legal memo with the fellow members of the commission. The NCPC didn't vote on the issue, either. How can they (as a commission) advocate for a position that hasn't even been articulated to them?

by hmmmm on Jul 8, 2010 2:52 pm • link • report

""streetcars in Charlotte, Cincinnati, Dallas, Fort Worth, and St. Louis"

Can anyone say + REDSTATES +

Gees Obama and friends why don't we also give a few more defense contracts to the good ole boys as well....after all these are the folks who are working hard with Mitt to keeps Dems in office -not"

North Carolina and Ohio went blue in 2008, you twit

by Zac on Jul 8, 2010 2:52 pm • link • report

Can we blame NCPC for the District not getting the K Street ARA funding as well? Maybe the District should do better planning/grant writing.

by JRinDC on Jul 8, 2010 2:56 pm • link • report

I mean really, do we want Joe Lieberman, Fenty and Vincent Gray debating the General Counsel's opinion before allowing the Chairman to pass it along?

by Lou on Jul 8, 2010 3:04 pm • link • report

The notion that Bryant is acting in some rogue capacity is absurd. The letter is on NCPC letterhead, and I haven't heard any complaints from anyone else over there in the last two weeks. 'nuff said.

I would think if there was any issue about who he was speaking for, he'd say something. You know, like Nickels does, when campaigning for Fenty.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report

Jamie: You haven't heard any complaints from anyone else at NCPC about it? You mean, except for the NCPC members who sent letters complaining about it? And this letter from 4 members specifically raising this objection?

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2010 3:14 pm • link • report

@David - you mean DC Planning Director and NCPC member Harriet Tregoning?

So, you think that any organization requires the unanimous approval of all it's members -- even those who may also represent conflicting interests - before it can adopt a position? That is absurd. If anything, her opinion should be explicitly disregarded since she has a conflict of interest.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 3:19 pm • link • report

Jamie, I certainly hope you are never given any sort of public authority or trust, with that world view.

No offense.

by Andrew on Jul 8, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report

I knew you were going to make this point.

They don't have a "conflict of interest." They have an interest which they are supposed to represent on NCPC. NCPC is a joint board made up of DC and federal representatives. The whole point is for it to merge the interests of the various groups.

The DoD representative doesn't have a "conflict of interest" if he speaks up on DoD issues. He's supposed to be there to speak up on DoD issues. If the Chairman doesn't like something relating to a military installation, he isn't entitled to make up his own mind, get a legal opinion without telling the DoD rep, send a letter on NCPC letterhead without telling the DoD rep, and then have commenters argue that "nobody" raised any concerns when the DoD rep objects to the Chairman not involving the DoD rep.

The DC members are real members. They aren't some kind of guest observers who are there with the forbearance of everyone else. They are part of the Commission, and like any other body made of up different groups, the Chairman is not entitled to go act on his own against the interests of the some of the members without involving them.

The Metro Board has reps from DC, Maryland, and Virginia. Let's say that DC and Maryland decide they want to cut service to Fairfax. Can Chairman Peter Benjamin (Maryland) go and send letters on official letterhead about this issue and refuse to tell the Virginia reps, because they have a "conflict of interest"?

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report

That letter would have carried more weight (as would the "no conflict of interest" argument) if Fenty and/or Gray had signed it themselves.

by Lou on Jul 8, 2010 3:30 pm • link • report

Saint Louis voters recently approved a 1/2 cent sales tax increase in April to pay for transit projects: http://t4america.org/blog/2010/04/08/st-louis-county-approves-half-cent-sales-tax-for-public-transit/ . A strong local commitment is an important consideration for the US DOT when deciding which projects to fund.

by Ben on Jul 8, 2010 3:33 pm • link • report

Sure NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act apply to the whole country for federally-funded projects. I don't see why this justifies NCPC actions and meddling in what is a purely local matter. Yes, Cincinnati's stretecar will be subject to NEPA because of these federal funds. However, it won't be subject to arbitrary review of "viewsheds" by an unrepresentative body of people living in Kentucky.

Also, I love how fast all of the anti-streetcar people are to defend Bryant and NCPC. Apparently their hatred of improved transit is so strong that they do not care about home rule.....The antis can talk all they want about viewsheds, planning, etc. In the end, though, they are mostly just people who dislike transit for ideological reasons or who do not really have much use for transit. Which is fine. But which also means they do not realize (or probably, care) what the people who rely on lousy transit such as the X2 Bus face every day of their lives.

As for 6 months in Charlotte: they were just laying track. H Street is a complete streetscape that would have taken just aslong as it is taking even with no streetcar tracks.

by rg on Jul 8, 2010 3:34 pm • link • report

@David, OK, I'll retract that, you're right. The letter represents the opinion of the chairman of the board, not a committee resolution. I guess, though, that is one of the privileges granted to the chairman of the board.

@Andrew, I am not sure what world view exactly you are
referring to, but if you have a criticism of something I've said, as opposed to a weak insult, then I'm happy to read and address it.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 3:35 pm • link • report

On the subject of streetcar project web presences, Fort Worth actually has two. There's the official City of Fort Worth site for the project:

http://fortworthstreetcar.org

And there's the site for the non-profit Streetcar Fort Worth, Inc.:

http://streetcarfortworth.com

The two work in conjunction with each other, with non-profit staffers and city staffers regularly sharing info and links. And the non-profit has an active Facebook presence with over 1,130 fans:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fort-Worth-Streetcar/346546437161

by Kevin Buchanan on Jul 8, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report

@Elephant
Saying this is a red state issue is misinformed. Chicago, IL and New York, NY and Stamford, CT all received more than 15 million in comfortably blue states. This money is fast-tracking projects in cities already committed to building or expanding streetcar and has nothing to do with the state's political color. Cities like those mentioned are and should be given these types of incentives to counter suburban sprawl and can create livable, walkable communities.

by Dallas on Jul 8, 2010 3:56 pm • link • report

Jamie

I was responding to:

So, you think that any organization requires the unanimous approval of all it's members -- even those who may also represent conflicting interests - before it can adopt a position? That is absurd. If anything, her opinion should be explicitly disregarded since she has a conflict of interest.

I will apologize for being snarky and not specific in my comment.

As David and others have already articulated, the Chair did not have the right to act unilaterally and does not enjoy that privilege in his capacity. While a board or commission decision need not be unanimous, there does need to be a quorum at a properly noticed meeting in order for the decision or opinion of a body to carry any legitimate weight.

Clearly that did not happen in this circumstance, and to wit, that is the criticism I lay at your remark.

by Andrew on Jul 8, 2010 3:57 pm • link • report

The DFW web site is great. Gotta love this:

May 2010 Project kickoff
June 2010 Project web pages live
....

Here we are in July 2010, and there's already awesome technical stuff on their web site, as promised. It seems clear to me why these other cities got the money and we didn't, and it has little to do with a letter. They have their shiz together. We don't.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 4:01 pm • link • report

Dallas: That was for the bus grants, not the Urban Circulator. There were lots more bus grants.

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report

I have a soft spot for Fort Worth, as I lived in that area for a couple of years. Streetcars would be a great addition; running from downtown to the Kimbell, and by the old T&P terminal. The metroplex desperately needs more transit.

If you compare the needs of Fort Worth to the needs of DC, I can see how Fort Worth would score higher.

by Lou on Jul 8, 2010 4:09 pm • link • report

@Andrew - I've conceded my error on this point. Generally speaking, though, I don't think that an organization should be expected to convene and vote in order to write a letter. As for what the chairman has the right to do, though... well, ... while this obviously annoyed some members, I guess it's good to be the king.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 4:12 pm • link • report

Evey public board I've seen has to convene to write a letter. ANCs must, the RAC does, NVTC, everyone. That's how public boards work.

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2010 4:15 pm • link • report

@Jamie

If you are a public body, then yes, you are, which was the basis for my original comment.

by Andrew on Jul 8, 2010 4:17 pm • link • report

Again, I think in the case of Counsel's rulings, they need to be isolated from potential meddling by board members, and that's just a general statement that applies to any type of board. Counsel is not in a position of advocacy, they are there merely to render expert legal opinions. If anybody can show me something in the NCPC bylaws that says the Chairman may not advocate on behalf of the General Counsel without some sort of consent from other board members, I'll retract my opinion.

You can argue the merits of Counsel's opinion, but to say the board should have had the opportunity to quash it is something different.

by Lou on Jul 8, 2010 4:37 pm • link • report

David,
You're right that NYC and Stamford are bus grants, but that does not mean the money is any less valuable. If you look at some of the descriptions, the two grants are funding very similar projects. My point was that the transportation funding was distributed to cities based on project merit not state politics. The fact that circulator grants are going to these particular cities is due to improved land use policy and city planning not election polls.

by Dallas on Jul 8, 2010 4:40 pm • link • report

If we're talking about a formal resolution of the board, then sure. This wasn't. I am sure that Gabe Klein didn't get the city council to vote before he fired off his response on DC government letterhead.

It's really a minor point. It was a dick move to be sure. Did he break any laws or bylaws? I doubt it.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 4:40 pm • link • report

It's getting tiring explaining how public boards work.

The DC Council and Mayor are a different case. The Mayor is a separately elected, separate branch of government with the power to act on his own. Bryant is just the Chairman of a board. As such, he could send letters expressing his own opinion, but he's not allowed to claim to speak for all of NCPC without approval of the Board through an official vote at a properly noticed meeting.

Lou: Bryant could release the Counsel's opinion, but he can't ask FTA to do something based on it without the Board's approval.

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2010 4:45 pm • link • report

So, David, in what part of the letter did he say he spoke for NCPC? His exact language is:

"I believe it would be advisable." -- not NCPC.

The only time he refers to NCPC as an entity is:

"NCPC maintains that Council's legislative action is contrary to a legal opinion by NCPC's general counsel."

Since this debate is pretty much a purely technical one, you need to hand it to the guy for using the right pronouns in the right places.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 4:52 pm • link • report

I think the original post was a little but unclear on what was awarded: there were two separate grant programs.

The Urban Circulator program, for which DC had applied, ended up awarding 6 grants totaling about $130M, chosen from 65 applications, which would have taken more than $1B to fund fully. Five of these grants were in the neighborhood of $25M, and the sixth was the McKinney Avenue trolley in Dallas for $4.9M. Four of the large grants were streetcars, the fifth was "bus rapid transit."

There was also the Bus and Bus Livability program, which funded 47 projects totaling $163M, selected from 281 applications that would have required more than $2B to fund fully. 3 of these grants were over $10M and 17 were under $1M.

The FTA likes to tout all 53 projects (and 31 states) but it's not like 53 other cities got $25M for streetcars with DC being the odd city out. Only four big streetcar projects were funded, out of what were probably dozens of applications.

My own tin-foil-hat theory here is that Bryant knew that DC faced long odds with or without his letter, and by trying to go on the record opposing a proposal that wasn't likely to get funded to begin with, he or his organization would then appear to have more influence than it actually does when the negative decision came down. Of course it was sort of a gamble, because if it had been funded then his organization would appear to have much less clout, but it's not out of the question that he had inside information about the negative decision. On the whole, not altogether different from a politician taking credit for programs begun under his predecessor.

by thm on Jul 8, 2010 4:53 pm • link • report

Jamie: It was on NCPC letterhead, and gave the clear impression of being an official communique even if he avoided explicitly saying so. In other cases I've seen where a chair of a board writes a letter on letterhead giving the impression of officiality without support (like ANC 2B), he gets slapped by the members.

The other federal NCPC members were also upset, I hear.

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2010 4:54 pm • link • report

Well, I expect he is going to get slapped, that's up to them, and I'm sure he knew he would pay that price.

I agree it was inappropriate, all I'm saying here is that at the end of the day, he had the power to do it, and he used that power. So complain about it all you want, but it's part of the game. It's hardly the first time someone in this position abused their power while not technically crossing the line.

by Jamie on Jul 8, 2010 4:58 pm • link • report

My own tin-foil-hat theory here is that Bryant knew that DC faced long odds with or without his letter, and by trying to go on the record opposing a proposal that wasn't likely to get funded to begin with, he or his organization would then appear to have more influence than it actually does when the negative decision came down.

ding ding!

This is actually quite common in lobbying circles, and was a major component of the Abrahamoff/Reed-Tribal scandal of the 00s...

by oboe on Jul 8, 2010 5:01 pm • link • report

Jamie is trolling the crap out of all of you, and you all keep taking the bait.

by Chris L on Jul 8, 2010 6:40 pm • link • report

Jamie is just presenting an argument counter to what David's argument is. That doesn't make her 'tolling'. If David et al. just wanted to hear from people willing to agree with everything they had to say, why bother with the GGW Site?

by Lance on Jul 8, 2010 9:27 pm • link • report

* or 'him' trolling

by Lance on Jul 8, 2010 9:29 pm • link • report

I just wanted to note that Savannah, GA has a streetcar line that is a hybrid electric motor and doesn't have overhead wires. The technology is new but is likely to become more widespread over time. It's critical that people learn about the Savannah project so that more cities adopt similar projects.

http://green.autoblog.com/2008/12/08/hybrid-streetcar-to-lead-savannah-climate-action-parade/

There are no wires on this streetcar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV0xM-gLj5w

by M. C. on Jul 8, 2010 11:16 pm • link • report

It's critical that people learn about the Savannah project so that more cities adopt similar projects.

Why on earth would we want more cities to power their streetcars by burning hydrocarbons? We don't have enough of those as it is, and the planet certainly can't take it.

by David desJardins on Jul 9, 2010 2:00 am • link • report

@David D, Perhaps because it is far cleaner burning than coal burning electric generation plants operating at most inefficient peak power times? Did you read the link and especially the comments there?

by Lance on Jul 9, 2010 9:54 am • link • report

I'm bummed DC didn't get the grant, but looking at the ones that were given ones, I'd say that they do connect major destinations and areas within their respective cities, more so than the Benning extension. Is the Benning extension transformative? Perhaps, but not as much so as Cincinnati's plan, or that of St. Louis. Those are linking up downtowns, major recreational and tourist destinations and places, educational and employment centers. The Benning extension does not do this.

While I think the NCPC letter was a cheap shot, as Charlie at 12:45 noted, let's know the facts here.

by norb on Jul 9, 2010 9:54 am • link • report

While I don't know how the math works out at the end of the line, it's not intuitive that hybrid electric streetcars are a net negative.

Almost all power plant-generated electricity requires burning fossil fuels (or creating nuclear waste) around here, so it's not like it's free from the get go.

But that notwithstanding, even if these streetcars were running on conventional deisel engines, the pollution caused would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the cars in a city, and would almost certainly be offset because presumably people riding the streetcars aren't driving or riding buses anyway.

I think environmental concerns about the power source should be the least of our worries since any public transit, regardless of how it's powered, is light years better than no public transit.

by Jamie on Jul 9, 2010 9:57 am • link • report

Chris L, I'm a "him." It's OK, though, I am used to being labeled a troll on GGW by presenting an alternative viewpoint. I'm glad, though, that there are people here like David Alpert who at least take the time to counter my arguments instead of just calling me an idiot or a troll, but it really doesn't bother me.

Failure to listen to critics is a guarantee that you will not understand the downsides of your position. You can call it what you will, but the viewpoints frequently presented here are rarely balanced. If there were nobody who dissented from the positions frequently taken by GGW then it would be a waste of everyone's time, wouldn't it?

by Jamie on Jul 9, 2010 10:02 am • link • report

Look, if the anti-wires people's argument is that we should be using wireless technology because wires are "obsolete" and "old tech" then a DIESEL-POWERED streetcar is definitely not the way to go.

This is a bus on rails. What a joke.

by MLD on Jul 9, 2010 10:07 am • link • report

"This is a bus on rails. What a joke."

Um, that pretty much defines all streetcars regardless of how they are powered.

I'm not saying we should be using deisel powered streetcars. I'm just saying that environmental concerns when comparing the different power sources are virtually inconsequential in the grand scheme of things and should not weigh heavily in a decision.

by Jamie on Jul 9, 2010 10:13 am • link • report

I can't agree that the environmental consequences of diesel vs electric transit are negligible or irrelevant just because most electric power is generated by burning coal *now*. That might be a plausible argument if the expected life of a transit system were 5 or 10 years. (But even then you would have the issue of emissions, especially particulates, in a densely populated area.) But the real issue is that the high capital cost of transit means that you're buying it for several decades. And that is a time period in which we must drastically reduce the use of hydrocarbon fuels, and we know how to do that for electric power generation, we just have to decide to do it. The more we are wedded to hydrocarbons for transportation the harder the problem will be. Sure, transit is a small part of total transportation energy usage, but it's also the easiest by far to electrify. If we can't even tackle the low-hanging fruit, how are we ever going to deal with the harder problems?

by David desJardins on Jul 9, 2010 12:15 pm • link • report

@David desJardins, And that is a time period in which we must drastically reduce the use of hydrocarbon fuels,

Why? With the introduction of catalytic converters back in the 70s, automobiles became non-polluting (and even perhaps cleaner than the ambient air they are 'exhausting' into as one poster stated the last time this came up). So while streetcars and buses might be 'cool', let's not say we're doing anything to counter air pollution with them. On the contrary, with either every car we take off the road with them removes one person from a clean burning non-polution means of transportation and puts them into a poluting form of transporation ... with taxpayer subsidies to boot!

by Lance on Jul 9, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report

The main reason we must drastically reduce the hydrocarbons we burn is that we are putting way too much CO2 into the atmosphere. Unless you come up with a magical, cost-effective way to remove it, the only solution we have is to generate a lot less.

I'm not sure if your comment about cars being non-polluting is a joke, or what. Not really very funny.

by David desJardins on Jul 9, 2010 4:54 pm • link • report

Yes I would also love to know, under what definition are auto engines "non-polluting." I guess if you don't think previously sequestered carbon (in the form of CO2 and CO) or NOX or unburned hydrocarbons are pollutants then sure!

by MLD on Jul 9, 2010 5:07 pm • link • report

@Lance

You have got to be kidding. Tell that to me the next time I'm standing on the street corner inhaling fumes. Cars may be cleaner than they were several decades ago, but they're still one of the largest sources of pollution today. There is no conceivable way that their exhaust could be cleaner than the air that they're taking in. Try running your car in a closed garage and see how clean the air gets.

As for the problems with hydrocarbon fuels, if you can't see the massive problems with them by now then I don't know what to tell you.

I like to hear everyone out, but as far as I'm concerned you just lost all of your credibility with that one.

by Matthias on Jul 10, 2010 9:40 pm • link • report

@David desJ

Not a joke. The truth. When this subject came up a couple months ago (here), I stated that I thought cars where something like 97% non-polluting since introduction of catalytic converters back in the 70s. Another poster corrected me by giving some facts that because the air coming out of catalytic converters is super-cleaned in the converter, that in cases like Washington, that air is actually cleaner than the ambient air. Now that doesn't apply to diesel trucks and much of public transportation, but cars in general really are non-polluting. It's a fact. So, while streetcars will be a great addition, let's not say that reducing pollution will be one of their benefits. They will increase it. Maybe not here, but in the places where the coal burning plants produce the electricity to power thje streetcars.

by Lance on Jul 12, 2010 12:12 am • link • report

I thought cars where something like 97% non-polluting

If 3% of all tailpipe emissions were substances harmful to the environment or human health, would that be a good result??

Another poster corrected me by giving some facts that because the air coming out of catalytic converters is super-cleaned in the converter, that in cases like Washington, that air is actually cleaner than the ambient air.

Did he also tell you that pigs can fly? Let me guess, he heard it on Glenn Beck. This is such absurd crap you embarrass yourself by even pretending to believe it.

by David desJardins on Jul 12, 2010 12:52 am • link • report

@David desJardins; no, Lance has a real point.

Cars, in particular gasoline cars, can be very clean.

A couple qualifiers:

1. They are putting out Nox and VOC, which can be a problem during summer; the sun creates ground level ozone.

2. The cat converter has to get hot enough -- short trips under 15 minutes are just not long enough to generate the heat to get the chemical process started. So a lot of city trips might not count. Never seen any data on that. I drive about 3500 miles a year, and I know the majority of them are very short trips. Terrible for my engine, good for urban planning?

3. Diesels still put out a lot of particulate matter.

Problem #1 is a real issue. Can we find a technical breakthrough to remove Nox from emissions? PHEC (Chevy Volt) have great promise, but we need to get lucky to find the modern version of a cat converter.

Also, (and I could be wrong about this) but direct injected engines, which promise a lot of efficiency gains, might introduce more particulate matter.

In terms of CO2, well, I can see why people think it is bad but everything we do with out lives creates CO2.

I spent all weekend refinishing the sailboat. The amount of pollution I created -- VOC, organic waste, chemical spills, etc -- compared to what I create by driving was spectacular. And this is for the ultimate wind powered machine.

by charlie on Jul 12, 2010 8:20 am • link • report

Hey, thanks for confirming what I assumed in my comment above! If you just ignore all the pollutants that cars create, then they are non-polluting!

And using "everything pollutes" as an excuse to wave away pollution is sure to reduce the damage we're doing to the environment!

by MLD on Jul 12, 2010 8:54 am • link • report

So, bottom line is that while streetcars are a nice to have in a number of ways, one of the costs of getting people from relatively burning automobiles into the dirty burning coal generated powered streetcars will be an increase in pollution.

I.e., whether we're moving people from their automobiles, or buses, or Metro, OR FROM USING THEIR FEET, we're going to get a net increase in pollutants out there because of streetcars. And since the operations model of the streetcar is to move people between adjacent neighborhoods or even within single neighborhoods, I'd bet that most of the people that will end up using streetcars are today instead using their feet. Yes, it'll be a convenience, but let's not try to say it's a 'green' move, 'cause it's not.

by Lance on Jul 13, 2010 9:17 am • link • report

What if Streetcars are powered by renewable energy? Don't you think there is an increased likelihood that 15 to 30 years from now, more of our electricity will be coming from solar, wind and hydro-electric rather than coal, oil and natural gas?

by Andrew on Jul 13, 2010 9:31 am • link • report

This is such a ridiculous thread. Cars are not clean. Go google automobile emissions, seriously.

Everything we do produces CO2... yeah, sure. A modern car makes 12,000 pounds of it a year of it (not to mention CO and nox). A person makes about 700 pounds a year of CO2.

Further, all the CO2 produced by humans and animals is part of a closed cycle -- it was previously trapped by the plants that were the source of our food. CO2 released by burning fossil fuels has been trapped for millions of years and is outside of that closed system. It's a net addition.

This is such basic science which even most right wing freaks don't debate. Haven't you seen the ice samples that show dramatic increases in atmospheric CO2 levels in the last 150 years? On the order of the type of change seen over cycles lasting hundreds of thousands of years historically, and coincident with global temperature changes?

For example:

"Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere."

by Jamie on Jul 13, 2010 9:53 am • link • report

So, bottom line is that while streetcars are a nice to have in a number of ways, one of the costs of getting people from relatively burning automobiles into the dirty burning coal generated powered streetcars will be an increase in pollution.

Is there an option to ban trolls from posting?

by David desJardins on Jul 13, 2010 12:40 pm • link • report

@David desJardins:
It takes 2 to tango. If you stop biting, they'll go fish somewhere else.

by Matt Johnson on Jul 13, 2010 12:43 pm • link • report

Old adage: Don't feed the trolls... :-}

by Matt on Jul 13, 2010 12:53 pm • link • report

@Jamie sez:

I am used to being labeled a troll on GGW by presenting an alternative viewpoint.

Surely there's a corollary to the Dunning-Kruger Effect that covers inadvertent internet trolling? :)

by oboe on Jul 13, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report