Posts about Gerry Connolly

Metro is a starting point for the broad discussion around transit.

The meeting revolves around a bill Connolly introduced to study running Metro specifically in the area. But as he explained, his goal is "not to prejudge Metro" as the right or wrong mode, but rather to get a conversation going about transit in the area. That is sorely needed.

Earlier this week, we discussed the merits of many transportation options, from light rail to improved VRE to extending the Blue or Yellow Lines (or both). All of these have their pros and cons and any discussion of transit options for southern Fairfax and eastern Prince William should consider them all and more.

But the simple reality is that if Connolly had called a meeting entitled "Discussion of multimodal travel alternatives in the I-95 corridor," almost nobody would show up. But announce a meeting on "Metro to Woodbridge!" and it gets major coverage in the press.

We have to think very long-term.

Prince William County needs to start thinking about transit. If they fill the county with entirely car-dependent development, they'll end up regretting it in 30 years, but it'll be too late to cost-effectively provide any alternatives. Designing more walkable and transit-oriented communities in a few spots and focusing most of the growth there can help the county grow without making traffic worse for all its existing residents.

But these things take a long time. Connolly pointed out that rail in the Dulles corridor was first discussed in a federal document in 1962. 47 years later, Virginia signed the first funding agreement to build it. The question is not just what's best for southern Fairfax and eastern Prince William today, but what's best in 2058 as well.

And for all we know, 47 years from now there will be automated tunnel-building machines which can not only dig tunnels, like today's TBMs, but handle utility relocation and everything else to make building a long tunnel far cheaper than it is today. Or maybe not, but we can't know today.

Transit planning is also politics.

Some argued in the comments on Tuesday's article that we should focus on transit in the core. That is where the capacity crunch is greatest. On the other hand, transit in outer areas will bring transit accessibility to the greatest number of people who lack it today. Not only is that good public policy, but it builds public support for transit generally.

When there's no transit in a community, nobody uses it, nobody builds with it in mind, and so few people can imagine how transit could be a part of their transportation mix. If a big transit project is coming to the area, people have something to look forward to and advocate around.

Also, designing transit for all communities is an important way to bridge the "culture war" gap between the urban and suburban lifestyle. When transit is an element of many communities from the densest urban ones to the lowest-density suburbs (perhaps with different modes, like commuter rail or express buses), it helps prevent or reduce the political dynamic where the more numerous suburban legislators want to cut transit entirely since they have no constituents who use it.

Bad road projects shouldn't be the only megaprojects to choose from.

Finally, our system of government and media has a bias toward transportation megaprojects over many smaller ones. A huge project gets headlines and attention. Leaders, from local to federal, like to be associated with big public works. Big projects make people feel that something significant is getting done.

This is unfortunate, since a larger number of smaller transportation improvements can make more of a difference for less money. As I noted in the Post, Capital Bikeshare (which was itself a big deal) could be built 18 times over for the price of the massive Gainesville interchange rebuild alone. Individual bike lanes, sidewalks, roundabouts, street reconnections, bus lanes, bus service enhancements, and more each cost little but add up to a lot of value.

The 2030 Group/Bob Chase/Rich Parsons survey of unnamed transportation experts fell (or deliberately leapt) into this trap, asking transportation engineers what their short list of 10 big projects would be to address regional mobility. Naturally, those engineers picked 10 very large projects even if 100 or 1,000 small ones would do more.

But if transit advocates simply stop thinking big, the result won't be more sensible projects, but just more big, sprawl-inducing, induced demand-creating road projects. There are always more pie-in-the-sky big freeways. The state DOTs have been studying some of them for decades, like the Tri-County Parkway in Virginia or the I-270 widening in Maryland. If they're turned down, like the Mid-County Highway extension, the DOT brings it back a decade later.

These projects float around for a long time with absolutely no money to build them. Then, at some point the economic outlook improves or a governor wants to borrow significant money from a few generations hence, and presto, the projects get funded.

Therefore, it's important to start studying and planning some big transit projects and get those plans closer to "shovel-ready." Maybe the conversation will settle on a more modest solution. Maybe the travel demand and federal funding climate will change and big projects will again become fiscally feasible. Maybe technology will make building subway tunnels cheaper. Or maybe just having the conversation will itself lead to a better vision for the future of this area.

The meeting is Monday, September 26, 6:30 pm at Harbour View, 13200 Marina Way, in Woodbridge.

If federal government workers were allowed to telework in the most extreme heat (say, on days when the heat index is forecast to be over 105), there would be several real benefits:

• Air quality. Extreme summer heat often goes hand in hand with unhealthy air quality in the DC area and commuter vehicles are a major contributor of pollution. With about 103,000 federal workers telecommuting in 2008 (PDF), that's potentially a large number of tailpipes off the road.

• Easing transportation strain. On very hot days, the wait for a tow truck for a broken-down car can be a hazard and Metro cars without air conditioning become unbearable hot cars.

• More productive workers. If you have to start your day drenched in sweat, you're not going to be at your most productive—you're going to be watching the clock until you can go home and drink a gin & tonic the size of your head. Teleworkers, on the other hand, are scientifically proven to be more productive than their commuting counterparts.

Last week, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) wrote to OPM asking for a renewed look at encouraging telecommuting on the hottest days:

Last year I wrote to you following the blizzards and nuclear summit to ask if OPM was using telework to mitigate congestion during extreme weather or events which cause widespread street closures. I appreciate your leadership to implement telework during these events.

This summer's weather suggests that extreme heat may also create a need for expanded telework. As you know, we have experienced nearly a month of consecutive days with 90 degree or higher temperatures, including record high temperatures and unusually high nighttime temperatures. This extreme heat is not only uncomfortable, but also exacerbates ground level ozone pollution and associated respiratory diseases.

I am aware that the Department of Homeland Security encouraged employees to take a telework day during the most extreme heat, and would appreciate your consideration of making such a practice more common across agencies. Reducing traffic and associated ozone pollution in our region will become increasingly important as extreme heat becomes more common in our region.

Of course, our climate is now even hotter than it was in DC's early days, and it's getting worse fast. Globally, June was 1.60°F hotter than the 20th-century average. And considering Congress hasn't curbed America's carbon emissions and the world has copied our inaction, we're hurtling towards the most extreme changes.

Letting feds telework on the hottest of hot days won't protect DC from global warming, but it would be an easy step to making it a bit more tolerable.

But not all Republicans are bad. We endorse Republican Patrick Mara for the DC State Board of Education. When the Mayor took control of schools, the State Board of Education switched from being the school board for DCPS to a much more advisory role. However, its members still have opportunities to influence the course of education reform in DC, especially in the way DCPS relates to the charter schools.

Mara, who David endorsed in 2008 for DC Council at-large, is challenging incumbent Dotti Love Wade for the Ward 1 seat.

Mara is running as a hardcore reformer. Wade is more of just an in-the-trenches Board member who works on nitty gritty things like curriculum and teacher certification. We need a voice for change at the "state" level and Mara would certainly bring it.

Mara would also provide an opportunity for Adrian Fenty's and Michelle Rhee's supporters to add strength toward keeping her reforms going. The one big practical difference between Rhee and Mara is that Mara strongly supports funding parity for DC public charter schools, which presumptive Mayor-elect Vince Gray also does and which Fenty did not, creating yet another reason to vote for Mara.

The only thing to disappoint public education supporters in DC could be Mara's vocal support for the private school voucher system that was imposed on DC by Congress. We feel that it's better to provide choice through the robust charter system and the DCPS out of boundary system if their neighborhood schools are not making the grade.

Ward 6 features a contest between two mothers who bring real energy to the cause of school reform. We endorse Monica Warren-Jones, who despite her tepid support of charter schools, is a serious candidate with a strong background and well thought out positions on how to continue to move schools forward.

The other candidate, Melissa Rohan is a vigorous proponent of school choice, but seems to lack specifics beyond supporting charter schools and vouchers. Her debate performance failed to fill in the blanks, with answers such as "I'm going to be an advocate for your kids!" and "I care about your kids!" Additionally, she canceled the long-scheduled debate at the last minute, only to hurriedly rescind her cancellation. This raises questions about her understanding of the process and reliability.