Evans' fiscal concern is always undermined by his willingness to give tax abatements to just about anyone that asks.

That said, his Twitter fight with local advocate-masquerading-as-a-journalist Jason Cherkis was highly entertaining. Two self-absorbed hacks going at it with dueling statistics and threats of breaking out charts and graphs.

Don't forget Nat Gandhi's CAFR presentation at 10 am today.

And very sad condolences to family and friends of Jeff Coudriet.

by Fritz on Feb 8, 2011 9:05 am • link • report

"buy narrower firetrucks"

Hahahahahahahaha...hilarious. Yeah, because fire departments go out and buy the biggest, most pimped out SUV/Land Yacht fire trucks to feed their ego and "look cool".

Gee, why don't we just go back to horse drawn water carts and ambulances and be done with the matter.

by freely on Feb 8, 2011 9:10 am • link • report

No kidding. And they buy a new fleet of firetrucks every year.

Fire trucks last for years and are very expensive. Seems a bit more cost-effective to limit on-street parking. After all, isn't the street public space, not for guaranteed private use?

by ah on Feb 8, 2011 9:19 am • link • report

While the Governor's right in that interest rates are low, the GARVEE part of the funding package is gonna come back to bite VDOT down the road (pun intended). MnDOT tried this same thing 8 years ago, and they had to cut projects back because "anticipated Federal funding" wasn't as high as expected, which meant fewer projects let and a larger percentage of what Federal funding did come had to go to pay back the bonds.

A $2 billion or so package (leaving out the GARVEE bonds) would have been acceptable. Going for the full boat, as they did, will sink them in a few years.

by Froggie on Feb 8, 2011 9:21 am • link • report

I'm counting about 500 million in transit funding, the majority in Nova.

The way I read the money was 1.1 billion in the GARVEE bonds, and they found about 1.8 billion in VDOT bonds (from the $1 billion in VDOT savings they found?). Throw in some money from ABC privatization.

by charlie on Feb 8, 2011 9:26 am • link • report

Firetrucks are bigger than they used to be and, if a survey of the Sutphen, LaFrance, Piersh and Seagrave sites are any indicator, you won't find one narrower than what is now in service. Why bigger? Two reasons: safety and technology. Firefighters are much safer rising in a crew cab instead of hanging of sideboards and tailboards. I've ridden the tailboard of a pumper at speed. I'd rather be seated with a seatbelt on. A crew cab to fit 4 to 6 firefighters in gear has to be of pretty good size. Technology plays a role, too. Fire engines carry more gear than they did 30 years ago and you have to have a vehicle it fits in. Arlington will be using it's current roster of apparatus for many years as a fire truck does last a long time, by design. They don't get a lot of mileage, they do get a lot of maintenance and key components are either replaceable or made of extremely long-lasting, corrosion resistant materials. The county isn't going to waste money replacing what is still serviceable.

by Lacy Forest on Feb 8, 2011 9:56 am • link • report

The photos in the article show that a firetruck can fit down the street, just probably not at full speed. I fear that Arlington's calculation in the decision only considered a possible delay to firetrucks and did not consider that removing parking eases speeding, which increases the number and severity of crashes. Far more people die in road fatalities than die in house fires these days.

by Eric Fidler on Feb 8, 2011 10:06 am • link • report

Hahahahahahahaha...hilarious. Yeah, because fire departments go out and buy the biggest, most pimped out SUV/Land Yacht fire trucks to feed their ego and "look cool".

Have you ever dealt with fire departments at the local government level? Because that's pretty much exactly what they do.

But yeah, I'm not sure what to do about this. I say take away one side of parking and put a bike lane in to keep speeding down!

by MLD on Feb 8, 2011 10:09 am • link • report

Perhaps Arlington should ask all residents to sign a waiver for any claims for damages to their cars by fire trucks coming through. Let the fire trucks go through at whatever speed they need, and then open doors into the parked cars if they need to exit to put out a fire.

by ah on Feb 8, 2011 10:11 am • link • report

Far more people die in road fatalities than die in house fires these days.

And most of those people die on highways/freeways, not on residential side streets. Here's where that article is talking about http://tinyurl.com/6dfpyzq

by Kolohe on Feb 8, 2011 10:16 am • link • report

@ Kolohe; actually, it isn't divided highways -- it is two lane roads.

I think the bigger issue is the Arlington fire dept. doesn't need to be sending out the big trucks every time a kitty gets stuck in the tree -- or an alarm goes off.

I live next to one, and they are constantly heading out. Of course, when a small electric fire happened in our building, it took them 45 minutes to show up.

AFD fail.

Hard to cut funding for some of your better political volunteers. However, after this last debacle in Arlington regarding the petition, I wouldn't be surprised if Zimmerman does some of his revenge-ninja moves.

by charlie on Feb 8, 2011 10:39 am • link • report

Interesting article on fire truck growth over the last decade. Bottom line, it's a cost-savings measure. Municipalities want to be able to have a single truck that does everything, rather than several vehicles, so the trend is towards vehicles that look like Jawa Sandcrawlers.

Of course, there is quite a bit of bias towards the "Mega trucks are TEH AWESOME!!1!" line of thinking, as freely demonstrates above.

by oboe on Feb 8, 2011 10:47 am • link • report

God damn it, don't know what's with me this morning. Here's the article referred to in the previous post:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/12/09/bigger_fire_trucks_putting_squeeze_on_aging_stations_south_of_boston/?page=2

by oboe on Feb 8, 2011 10:48 am • link • report

Firetrucks have grown a great deal over the years. As evidence, a few years ago the UN building in NYC had to undergo expensive and extensive retrofitting because the ramps etc, which were built 50 years ago, could not longer handle the larger trucks.

There is much to be said for having smaller trucks, at least for most responses.

by SJE on Feb 8, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report

Mercedes doesn't have a problem making narrower fire engines for European cities. And with 'Health and Safety' in the UK, I really doubt they are more dangerous. I believe some of them even have four wheel steering all controlled by a single driver for tight cornering. Sounds like a case of setting a standard for roads without actually setting a standard fire engine manufacturers to follow.

Since, I believe, most fire calls are actually medical events, and if speed is so much of a desire, why not a paramedic on a motorbike? Cities in the UK, Germany, and Singapore have them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/content/articles/2009/01/30/west_paramedics_s15_w3_video_feature.shtml

Even for a fire, having a trained staff member quickly on scene could really help manage an appropriate response.

by shy on Feb 8, 2011 12:15 pm • link • report

We need to equip those funny little smartcars with hook and ladder gear. That would be the right response.

Seriously, I'm no expert on firetrucks but I'm willing to err on the side of giving emergency vehicles wide berth and easy passage. It seems like traffic calming advocates can take things too far sometimes.

by Ward 1 Guy on Feb 8, 2011 12:23 pm • link • report

re: Skins practice facility in DC, I think people are too quick to judge here. We should consider any proposal on its merits and not make emotional decisions based on how we feel about Dan Snyder or Jack Evans as men. For example, some future owner of the Redskins might be less of a jerk.

We should be vigilant against unwise tax abatements, but if incentives can pay for themselves, then we should use them to stimulate growth. It would be nice to put some "Washington" back into the Washington Redskins.

by Ward 1 Guy on Feb 8, 2011 12:26 pm • link • report

Seeing as fire trucks typically cost in the range of $500,000 to $1,000,000 each putting up a few no parking signs seems like a much more cost effective solution to this problem.

by Jacob on Feb 8, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report

The fire truck thing is a good reminder of how wonkish types seem oblivious to doing a little homework or learning how the real world operates.

by Rich on Feb 8, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report

Buying narrower fire trucks so these people can have street parking seems ridiculous. If removing parking increases speeds, there are other approaches to traffic calming.

by David desJardins on Feb 8, 2011 4:28 pm • link • report

Fire departments have control of the traffic calming issue now that the International Fire Code was amended last May (amendment F17-09/10) changing Section 503.4.1. to state, "Traffic calming devices. Traffic calming devices are prohibited unless approved by the fire code official."

NOT KIDDING ABOUT THIS...

by Some Ideas on Feb 8, 2011 5:27 pm • link • report

Fire departments have control of the traffic calming issue now that the International Fire Code was amended last May

The International Fire Code is just a model law. It only has force in any jurisdiction if adopted by the local legislature.

In any case, there was no suggestion in the article that the fire department would oppose reasonable traffic calming.

by David desJardins on Feb 8, 2011 5:33 pm • link • report

@ the International Fire Code: I am truly surprised by the knowledge (from Wiki or not) of the commenters here on virtually any subject :-)

by Jasper on Feb 8, 2011 7:07 pm • link • report

Arlington residents are insane. These streets are over 50 years old. It is the responsibility of the FD to acquire equipment that is suitable for the realities of the situation. However, if you read the article, the reason the parking was removed is because some dingbat residents complained. Public safety was just the excuse given, a ruse as usual.

My street is about 22' wide and we deal with both two-way traffic and parking on both sides of the street just fine.

by movement on Feb 8, 2011 7:57 pm • link • report

I did a quick cost analysis of that TRIP report. Their "Top 48 projects for Virginia" carry a price tag of $44 BILLION. I can't even count the last 2 because their transit projects that haven't even begun feasibility studies yet...but the most likely solution for those two adds about $1 billion to the figure.

Of that, close to half...44% of the total ($19.7B) is for new roads. Interstate improvements and widening (touching all the major Interstates except I-85) is another 27% ($12.2B). I-64 improvements alone are about $5.7 billion. Improvements to other primary highways (i.e. Route 17, Route 29, etc) is just over 12% of the total ($5.5B).

Transit is 9% of the total ($4B), but most of this is just for Phase 2 of the Silver Line. Passenger rail (which for my purposes includes VRE improvements) is about 6% of the total ($2.8B), while freight rail (mainly to accommodate double-stack containers) is the smallest at 1.2% (about $538M).

by Froggie on Feb 9, 2011 10:32 am • link • report

@ Froggie: Thanks for that summary. It is worthwhile to remember that NoVA has most people and money, VA is geographically a very rural state, where transit makes little sense in most areas. So I am not surprised by the massive road projects.

I-95 is a mess. I-64 east of Richmond is very heavily used. I-81 is not in good shape for certain parts. I-66 is a mess as well, especially close to DC. The same goes for the large US routes. US-1, 15, 17, 29. I wonder if VA is working on upgrade US-29 on the southern end. NC is upgrading US-29 and has Future I-785 signs up.

I am appalled by the financing though. It's highly irresponsible, especially for a governor that claimed to be a fiscal conservative. Delay and pray seems to be his finance motto.

And of course, we're missing chances for transit here in NoVa, Hampton Rds, and Richmond. Also sad to see that Richmond seems to have little interest in getting hooked onto the HSR line from DC to Boston. It would allow for massive economic opportunities to have a fast and frequent connection to DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Boston from Richmond.

by Jasper on Feb 9, 2011 11:07 am • link • report

@movement: However, if you read the article, the reason the parking was removed is because some dingbat residents complained. Public safety was just the excuse given, a ruse as usual.

I don't understand your theory. If you think that safety is a "ruse", what is their true motivation? Usually the complaint is the opposite, that residents want to protect their on-street parking. I've never heard of residents scheming to eliminate their on-street parking. What could their hidden agenda be?

by David desJardins on Feb 10, 2011 3:42 am • link • report

Jasper: actually, there is interest in Richmond for extending HSR/"an electrified NEC" south to Richmond's Main Street station. And amazingly, one of the projects in the TRIP report is $1.8 billion to increase passenger train speeds between DC and Richmond's Main Street station....they'd like to see at least a 90 MPH average speed.

by Froggie on Feb 10, 2011 9:37 am • link • report