Posts about Outer Beltway

The high tolls are a direct result of the state's failure to invest its own money in this critical transportation project, placing the burden fully and unfairly on northern Virginians. Instead of making the case to the Loudoun Board of Supervisors for the importance of moving forward, McDonnell's administration is making it easier for them to vote no, endangering the whole project.

The Governor just threatened again, via a budget amendment, to withhold the state's meager $150 million contribution to Phase 2 if his new appointees to MWAA were not seated immediately instead of on July 1st. Fortunately, the Virginia House of Delegates voted yesterday to kill the amendment, stopping this latest threat.

One of the main points of disagreement between the McDonnell administration and MWAA has been Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). These have been successful on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and Dulles Rail Phase 1 projects.

PLAs are not just about regulating union labor and wage rates for workers. They also require unions to help secure an adequate supply of skilled trades for these massive projects, and to ensure effective coordination among the dozens of trades and subcontractors, both union and non-union, for smoothly functioning, safe, and timely construction. The preference for PLAs in the bidding process seems a reasonable solution. We should move forward with these provisions.

The governor says he is greatly concerned that Virginia doesn't have a majority of seats on the MWAA governing board, which controls Dulles and Reagan National Airports, as well as the Dulles Toll Road and the Silver Line project. But this regional agency has effectively served our region for a long time, completing major and complex expansions of both airports.

It is true, however, MWAA could be much more transparent and accountable, as the IG report notes. The Coalition for Smarter Growth was among the first to raise this issue in 2006 when the Kaine administration proposed handing control of the project over to MWAA. Pressure from the governor, our federal and state legislators, and local elected officials has resulted in key reforms at MWAA. These reforms should continue, but so should the Silver Line.

The attacks on MWAA may have more to do with securing state control of future toll road revenues, for use on road projects like the Northern Virginia Outer Beltway and other rural highways, than about fixing the governance of MWAA.

We can't know that for sure, but it's very plausible given the administration's power grab at the Virginia Port Authority. After reorganizing the port authority's board to ensure control from Richmond, the administration pressed new board members to approve diverting $250 million to Route 460, a rural highway between Hampton Roads and Petersburg that Hampton Roads leaders say is not their top priority. A similar effort by the governor to secure a controlling majority on MWAA in order to do the same thing would not work to the best long-term interests of Northern Virginians.

McDonnell says that he could not even contemplate funding another $300 million for Dulles rail without raiding other projects throughout the state. But is he setting the right priorities? What money might actually be available?

The governor is proposing to spend over $750 million on the Route 460 project. Another $244 million is being earmarked to the controversial Charlottesville western bypass, a road that appears to be ineffective and a waste of money. Millions are going to the Coalfields Expressway to support mountaintop removal in an area with little traffic.

Even accounting for these projects, there may be another $400 million available in the $1.5 billion Public-Private Transportation Act fund. Setting different priorities would free up hundreds of millions more.

It's hard to respond to the governor's argument that Northern Virginia is getting its fair share of the state's funding without seeing the full picture. A clearer accounting of complicated funding flows would be helpful for both the public and legislators. Certainly, making significant investments in addressing the transportation needs of Northern Virginia should be a priority given the importance of the region to the state's economy.

Perhaps symbolic of the administration's priorities, Virginia Deputy Secretary of Transportation David Tyerar made two recent trips from Richmond to Leesburg to appear before the Loudoun Board of Supervisors. He didn't go to make the case for Dulles Rail. Rather, he spoke to promote the Outer Beltway.

The governor and secretary revived planning for the Outer Beltway, added it as a new Corridor of Statewide Significance, and are exploring the route for yet another public-private partnership. Yet this highway would do little to help massively congested corridors like I-66, Route 50, and Route 7. The contrast between the obstacles put before Dulles Rail by the McDonnell administration and their full-court press for the Outer Beltway couldn't be starker.

If the Silver Line's phase 2 fails, it will be on Governor McDonnell's watch. He should lead the way to compromises that will allow the project to move forward, and focus more of the state's transportation resources on this economically critical project.

Maryland officials explained that an outer Beltway isn't a priority and conflicts with smart growth and environmental principles. But they were the only ones saying that in the original article. They got scant attention. The broadcast audio paraphrased a few objections, but in nearly every case followed up with a sentence beginning with "But," implying that the arguments against the Outer Beltway deserve only rebuttal, not serious consideration.

The idea that arguments against the Outer Beltway are inconsequential is dangerously wrong. An Outer Beltway would primarily serve the large landowners in rural Virginia who want to fill their property with more cookie-cutter subdivisions. It actually won't help current commuters. VDOT's own 2004 study showed that 92% of drivers in the I-270 and Dulles corridors travel to and from the core, or along the current Beltway. An outer crossing wouldn't serve them.

Even for those who could use an Outer Beltway, a free or subsidized road would just induce its own demand, spurring new development in current farmland and filling up the road with new drivers stuck in new congestion. A toll road would have to charge a lot of money to pay back its costs. AAA would subsequently whine, as they are doing with the ICC, that it's too expensive and not enough people are using it.

The region needs better transit solutions between Bethesda and Tysons and the Metro lines in each corridor, not the failed Outer Beltway ideas of 50 years ago. The region has turned down these highways, over and over, because they simply won't solve our transportation troubles.

AAA is not a neutral source

It's not surprising that Bob Chase and AAA are still pushing an Outer Beltway as a transportation panacea, but it is disappointing when reporters fall for their pitch. Sadly, too many transportation reporters view AAA as some kind of neutral party.

AAA's helpful press releases on gas price trends and holiday weekend traffic let reporters fill column space without doing a lot of work. There's nothing wrong with those stories, but many reporters then fail to question when the organization's press releases attack officials on policy grounds, like AAA's broadsides against Mayor Gray's traffic safety camera initiative, or Governor Martin O'Malley saying that an Outer Beltway is not the priority for Maryland.

Bob Chase has a high-powered, expensive PR firm, Dewey Square, pitching far and wide his aggressive push for more and more highway lanes at the region's edge. Nonprofit advocates voicing alternative views, like the Coalition for Smarter Growth and Sierra Club, have to make do with much thinner resources. Good reporters put pitches from PR firms in their appropriate context and realize that they represent the interests of well-funded groups, not necessarily truth.

Unfortunately, we've seen several cases of journalists falling short on balanced coverage of late. WAMU stepped over the line recently with a brief morning story that only quoted AAA, and no pedestrian safety advocates, on traffic cameras. Reporter Armando Trull adapted an AP story which unquestioningly repeated the slant from The Washington Times.

AP reporters don't sign their articles, so we don't know who broadcast this biased story out on the wires without thinking. Besides WAMU, Fox5's Will Thomas also rewrote the traffic camera story, and the Washington Business Journal aggregated it, both without questioning its one-sided premise.

There's nothing wrong with opinion journalism—our articles are all opinions—but people know it. The Washington Times is mostly opinion, too, and so is anything from AAA, but many reporters and others mistake both. Running editorials on the Outer Beltway is one thing, but news reporters can and should stop regurgitating AAA's line on policy questions, and should look more critically at other outlets' stories when they don't.

WAMU worked to fix its mistake

After getting an earful from myself and a number of environmental and smart growth advocates on Friday, WAMU agreed with the criticism. Metro Connection Editor Tara Boyle told me on the record, "In looking at story a second time, we think the critique that we needed a bit more balance is real, and there is merit to these critiques."

The reporter, Martin Di Caro, spoke to Stewart Schwartz of CSG and myself, and added a section to both the audio and text versions with quotes from both of us. Di Caro has written many other, good-quality transportation stories in his 2 months at WAMU thus far, and I look forward to many more from him.

During our discussion, Di Caro mentioned that he's currently working at WAMU thanks to a grant. Their former transportation reporter, David Schultz, was also only at WAMU for a short time. It's terrific that WAMU is getting money to cover transportation issues, but it would be far better if they could rustle up more consistent funding to keep a single reporter more permanently. Transportation is not a trivial subject, and it's very helpful to have reporters able to develop some expertise in the beat. When a reporter is new, they're more likely to fall victim to AAA-itis or the related affliction, PR-rep-itis.

Meanwhile, WAMU deserves praise for looking at the story, recognizing that it was one-sided, and taking steps to do better with coverage now and in the future.

The fact that large majorities of people don't want new highways and are closely split on widening existing ones shows the effect of our region's decades of debate on these issues. Residents realize that new roads actually don't make their lives better, since new vehicle trips just fill up the new capacity within a few years, and the existing driver faces the same traffic as before.

About two thirds of residents thought new bridges across the Potomac River were a good idea, though it's less clear what those bridges would connect to, since many of the same respondents apparently don't want to increase road capacity on each end.

Also not surprisingly, people don't want to pay for any transportation projects. They oppose both tolls and higher gas taxes.

Given this, it's sad that Governor McDonnell keeps pushing the Outer Beltway, and Maryland continues to put the $3 billion I-270 widening ahead of the Purple Line in its priority list for how to spend future federal funds. That's because 82% of respondents "agree with the strategy of locating growth around existing employment centers," while large numbers (about half of respondents regionwide) oppose growth in rural areas. Yet the big-ticket transportation priorities of both states would push rural growth over strengthening today's job centers.

Smart growth is what the region wants. We should focus on transit, expanding walkable neighborhoods and building more, and putting new housing and jobs in existing dense areas and near underutilized transit stations. That's the only way to add more people to the region and help everyone get to and from work without the massive highway expansions which many people don't want and very few want to pay for.

Correction: I listed some of the numbers as reflecting public support for widening existing highways that are actually the levels of support for new highways. The post has been updated.

"This is DC?" Rail~Volution arrives

Every year hundreds of the country's leading transit experts, architects, planners, civic activists, and decision makers gather at the Rail~Volution conference. This year Washington, DC hosted and we learned from our guests that we have a lot to celebrate about the progress of our home region.

More than a few attendees exclaimed: "This is DC?" They were blown-away by our walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods, by the city's revitalization, by our suburban transit renaissance, by Capital Bikeshare, and more (and yes, they still have Metro envy). The hard work of an army of volunteers, staff from DC and other local jurisdictions, the DC business improvement districts, and our team at CSG resulted in a great conference. Attendees participated in eye-opening tours, forums on the latest in transit communities, a special set of local sessions, and a jam-packed film festival.

Transit communities advance in Prince George's

Prince George's made big strides toward tapping the vast potential of its 15 Metro stations. The CSG has long campaigned for investing in this remarkable asset to take further advantage of the multi-billion Metro investment, to address unbalanced commuting patterns, and to revitalize older, inner suburbs.

In his first year in office, County Executive Rushern Baker championed transit-oriented development and a new Economic Development Incentive fund. As unanimously passed by the Council, the record $50 million fund will support investment in transit-oriented development and inside-the-Beltway communities, serving as a catalyst for sustainable, long-term economic development.

The county and state also announced a major mixed-use development at New Carrollton Metro Station and the move of the state's housing agency to the station.

Fairfax County commits to a transit future

One year ago we held a "Future of Fairfax" summit for elected officials, local planners, business leaders, and civic activists. At the summit, Chair Sharon Bulova declared her support for transit and transit-oriented development as the future of the county and essential for both economic development and protecting the environment. In the year since, Fairfax County has led the way in advancing Phase 2 of Metrorail to Dulles, seeking cost savings, and a commitment of funding from the state.

The county also made progress on Tysons Corner, approving the first of 12 large mixed-used developments proposed under the new plan. In updating its planning policies and standards for its biggest urban center, the county is creating policies that can be extended to its revitalizing commercial corridors. These include a strong plan for bicycle and pedestrian access from surrounding communities to the Metro stations, the first application of stronger urban stormwater management standards, and steps toward achieving affordable housing goals.

With continued population growth, the county's commercial corridors with their acres of parking lots offer the best opportunity to absorb new homes, offices and retail, while creating mixed-use, walkable, bikeable, and transit-accessible neighborhoods that generate less traffic and help protect remaining forested green spaces. The Coalition for Smarter Growth continues to press for revitalization in these commercial corridors, places like the Richmond Highway (Route 1) Corridor, and Bailey's Crossroads.

The Purple Line advances and Montgomery commits to a transit future

Big news came in October when the Federal Transit Administration approved the Bethesda-Silver Spring-New Carrollton Purple Line light-rail project for "preliminary engineering." This is the critical stage when construction plans are developed and the alignments and stations are more clearly defined.

The Purple Line will provide thousands of people a traffic-free alternative for traveling to work and contribute to the revitalization and economic success of inside-the-Beltway communities in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, and it is only one part of the transit future that Montgomery County now envisions.

County Executive Ike Leggett launched a Rapid Transit Task Force to study and advance a 150 mile network of rapid transit long proposed by Councilmember Marc Elrich. The network is seen as critical for enhancing the economic competitiveness of the county, supporting economic growth while providing high-speed alternatives to sitting in traffic. The county hopes to create a national model with the system and attracted a $260,000 seed grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Stepping backwards: BRAC and the return of zombie highways

The scope of the traffic problems resulting from the Department of Defense's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) moves started to become apparent in 2011. DOD's decision to move over 20,000 jobs away from locations with Metro and commuter rail service ignored the huge transportation impact and left local and state governments with a multi-billion dollar bill for infrastructure. There is no better illustration of the impact of poor location decisions on transportation and the importance of transit-oriented development for our future than the BRAC moves.

DOD's return to a 1950's suburban office campus model was paralleled in 2011 by Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton's revival of a 1950's and 1960's idea for an Outer Beltway and up to two Potomac River bridge crossings. We call it the Zombie Highway for its eerie ability to come back from the dead, with various studies in 1989, 1997, 2001, and 2004.

The project would divert scarce transportation funds from fixing critical commuter corridors, do nothing to relieve traffic on existing roads, and fuel scattered development in rural areas in Stafford, Prince William, and Loudoun counties in Virginia, and Montgomery and Frederick counties in Maryland. The Secretary designated the proposed highway as a "Corridor of Statewide Significance" and lobbying groups began a renewed push for bridges from Great Falls and Loudoun into Potomac and the Montgomery Agricultural Reserve. One group and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell reportedly pushed the issue in a closed door meeting with Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and DC Mayor Vince Gray.

The push for the Outer Beltway has been part of an overall shift in Virginia away from supporting transit and the core traffic issues of Virginia's metropolitan areas in order to fund questionable rural highways. Hundreds of Virginians have signed our petition against the Outer Beltway and historic preservation groups have joined the fight because the first phase of the highway would run through hallowed ground at the historic Manassas National Battlefield.

If you care about smart transportation solutions and sustainable growth for our region, then we hope you will join the Coalition for Smarter Growth and our partners in what promises to be a tough fight in 2012 to stop this project.

So what's next? Keep an eye out for our next post, which will look ahead to 2012. CSG will work to continue the progress we saw in 2011, and you can count on us to continue fighting the Zombie Highway and proposing more sustainable transportation solutions. We hope you'll join us as we move the region forward, whether you attend one of our events, testify at a local hearing, or become an official sponsor of our work with a donation of $100, $64, or $32.

Have any honorable mentions for the top five smart growth moments of the year? Post in the comments!

Leave aside for the moment whether, in this era of limited public funding, the money even exists for these projects. You still run into a simple problem with these "solutions"—a focus on highway capacity expansion hasn't been effective at solving our traffic problems.

Fortunately, we don't think the situation is hopeless. It just requires a different way of thinking about the problem to get at those different results.

While we're not going to go into every possibility in this particular post, we do want to focus on the idea that smaller, localized projects taken as a whole can be better than the larger, flashier projects. Smaller projects can offer more travel options, improved livability, and better regional transportation performance for a fraction of the cost of a megaproject.

Focusing on simple projects like making it easier to walk or bike to school in a given locality, adding housing close to jobs and in commercial shopping corridors, connecting local streets, or incentivizing development at an underutilized Metro station can have a ripple effect on transportation in our region.

This is not to say that there is never a time or place for major infrastructure projects. But we can sometimes can get much better dividends by instituting common sense, smart growth solutions that give people real choices on neighborhood scale and transportation options. And we can often use our existing infrastructure instead of an over-reliance on creating something new.

To help demonstrate that, we're starting an occasional series on localized projects and themes that, when looked at as a whole, could provide real options in transportation and living arrangements. This piece-by-piece approach can improve the performance of our transportation system in the Washington region at the same time it strengthens our communities.

Our first posts will focus on smart growth in the Rockville Pike corridor in Montgomery County, creating Safe Routes to School in Fairfax County, and citizen involvement in Gaithersburg.

In the coming weeks we hope to present similar pieces from different areas throughout the DC area to highlight a range of solutions that together will offer regional benefits. Do you have some ideas of your own for your particular part or sector of the metropolitan region? We'd love to hear your thoughts. Let us hear your suggestion by submitting it as a post and we may include it as part of this series.

Roads are a very flexible form of transportation, but are inefficient in their use of space. Each car takes up a lot of room. The New York Subway's 22 tracks carry as many people as at least 167 lanes of car tunnels would.

If people drove evenly throughout the day, the road network would work optimally, but they don't. Buses and trains work better for moving people in a shorter time period to a small number of locations, because they cost more to run but can fit more people in a smaller space.

There are ways to make the road more efficient. More people could occupy each car. That's the logic behind the HOV rules and slugging on I-395 and other roads. Thanks to slugging and high bus volume, 95/395 is one of the most efficient roadways for its size in the nation (but will actually get less efficient with HOT lanes).

Instead of pushing more carpooling, VDOT actually waived the HOV restrictions on its freeways on Tuesday. That doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like they just threw their hands up and said, "Wow, earthquake! Let's just ignore everything we do to make our roads work better!"

If we knew ahead of time that we'd have to evacuate DC in a hurry one day, but didn't know when, we might actually plan for stricter HOV restrictions than usual. Take a few main arteries and make them exclusively HOV-3 or HOV-4 for the evacuation. Ask workers and residents to find "evacuation buddies" who work in the same office or live in the same inner neighborhood. These people would share the car when evacuation time came.

Once those carpools get to suburban residential areas, people will have to get home, but depending on the type of disaster, just getting everyone out might be most critical. The drivers can give rides that one time to their passengers, or they can wait in places like libraries for family members to pick them up.

Buses could also use the HOV roads, allowing them to travel much faster back to commuter lots and make a return trip to pick up even more people.

Not surprisingly, advocates for more roads and sprawl, like the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, immediately jumped on the issue to call for new Potomac River bridges as part of their long attempts to build an Outer Beltway. Such bridges wouldn't actually alleviate existing traffic congestion, but would instead just drive more sprawl development and make the evacuation challenge that much harder.

During the earthquake, Ezra Klein cleverly tweeted, "This earthquake has clear policy implications that back up my previously held political opinions." That's certainly true for NVTA.

I actually learned something from the earthquake that doesn't back up previously-held opinions: we can't count on Metrorail for an emergency. Especially with today's safety concerns, Metro is going to err on the side of limiting its operations in unusual circumstances. That's probably the right move if it's not a matter of life and death. But it means we need to think about evacuations another way.

We also need to think about when evacuations are necessary. Often they're not. One of the best things the federal government can do is not to send everyone home at the exact same time. Instead, the response from OPM seems to be to pull the "everyone go home" handle at any sign of trouble. We know that this causes gridlock.

DDOT Director Terry Bellamy said at a press briefing, "You can never build your way out of an event. I know there was a lot of talk about building more bridges across to Virginia, buidling more bridges into Maryland, but you never know where the event is going to occur," the WBJ reported.

Transportation Planning Board coordinator Ron Kirby told the Post, "Not only can [sending everyone home at once] not be done, we should not try it. ... If you give [people] very good timely information, they are going to make their own decisions in ways, in general, that are going to be better for them and better for the system as a whole."

Kirby also faults Metro for not communicating more; he might not have been on Twitter, because they actually did an excellent job of communicating there. They also sent multiple press releases out over their press list throughout the afternoon and evening. If you were at a train station or on a bus, was communication good or bad there?

The best way of all to get home after a major event like an earthquake? Walk or bike, if you can.

A little history: The zombie outer beltway has had many names and a colorful past. In the late 1980s it was the Washington Bypass, a controversial and costly proposal for a complete outer loop highway through Maryland and Virginia. That proposal was eventually dropped.

In the late 1990s two individual segments of the original loop plan were pursued, the InterCounty Connector (ICC) in Maryland, and the Western Transportation Corridor (WTC) in Virginia. The proposed WTC would have run between I-95 in Stafford and Route 7 in Leesburg.

In 2001 highway proponents pushed for a new northern Potomac River bridge between Virginia and Montgomery County that would be part of a proposed road called the Techway. Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) halted that effort after concluding the new bridge would harm communities on both sides of the river.

In 2002 voters in Northern Virginia rejected a proposal for a dedicated transportation sales tax in a public referendum, in part because the tax would have funded multiple segments of the outer beltway.

Finally, in 2005 and again in 2011, VDOT has proposed what they call the Tri-County Parkway, a new highway to run between I-66 in Prince William and Route 50 in Loudoun. Their preferred alignment for the Tri-County Parkway runs along the western boundary of Manassas National Battlefield. It is the same alignment studied in 1997 as the Western Transportation Corridor.

It is this highway that Secretary Connaughton has made a top priority, by designating it as a new Corridor of Statewide Significance. It is this highway that the Coalition for Smarter Growth opposes today.

Instead of building yet another wasteful highway that induces more traffic and more sprawl, VDOT should focus our tax dollars on more important transportation needs. They should also avoid harming the historic Manassas Battlefield, which would be impacted by the Tri-County Parkway.

The Coalition has performed an exhaustive study of the parkway / outer beltway, and found that the major traffic problems in its vicinity are on radial east-west commuter routes, not on north-south roads. The parkway won't relieve any congestion because it doesn't serve travel paths that are congested.

This table, based on information from VDOT traffic counts, compares traffic volumes on roads in the vicinity of the Tri-County Parkway. It clearly demonstrates that radial corridors have dramatically higher volumes than any north-south routes.

Only Route 28, which connects to the strong job centers on the east side of Dulles Airport, carries significant north-south traffic. Among north-south roads west of the airport and in the vicinity of the proposed Tri-County Parkway, Route 659 carries just 9,100 vehicles per day (VPD) from Prince William to Loudoun, and Route 15 carries just 15,000. In contrast, I-66 carries up to 63,000 VPD in Prince William, and Route 50 carries up to 40,000 VPD between Loudoun and Route 28.

In 2005 the Coalition for Smarter Growth commissioned a national traffic modeling expert, Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility, Inc., to analyze VDOT's Tri-County Parkway study. He demonstrated significant flaws in that study, finding that the new highway would induce new development and traffic, but not reduce congestion. Marshall recommended a more efficient set of solutions focusing on land use, conservation, transit, and demand management.

A more recent review of the Loudoun County Transportation plan by Lucy Gibson of Smart Mobility found that transportation engineers were overestimating north-south traffic compared to east-west traffic volumes.

Overall it is clear that the push for the new outer beltway is driven at least in part by those seeking to spark more development in western Prince William and Loudoun Counties, rather than focusing our scarce transportation funds on existing congestion problems. The Tri-County Parkway is an unnecessary and costly diversion from more rational transportation planning. We urge you to sign the petition against it.

In his op-ed, Staley writes,

Metro must set fares based on consumer demand by applying market-based pricing. Metro is leaving tens of millions of dollars on the rails simply because its fares don't capture the full higher value that riders are willing to pay at premium travel times.

Staley apparently didn't bother to look up Metro's fare structure before writing the piece. Because it already includes almost exactly what he suggests.

Peak of the peak pricing was a part of last year's fare increase, adding a 20¢ surcharge for trips in the busiest 1½ hour in the morning and evening. It's proven fairly unpopular, but revolved around the very ideas Staley is promoting, that people are willing to pay more at peak times (or if they're not, can ride the system earlier or later).

The specific peak-of-the-peak fare could probably use some tweaking to work better. It doesn't really quite match demand, either in terms of time or geography, but it's a close approximation. Many riders, though, would rather just remove the policy entirely, arguing that it's too confusing.

Still, the general concept is a sound one. It does make sense for Metro to capture the value it provides to riders. It's already doing that to a greater extent than almost any other system: according to statistics published in April, Metrorail is recovering 81% of its operating costs just from fares alone. Even when mixing in the lower cost recovery bus system, WMATA has one of the highest farebox recovery ratios in North America.

If it's good policy to have transit make back most of its costs from its users, what about other modes of transportation, like roads? Everything Staley says about Metro makes equal sense for driving. It's busiest at one time of day, to the point of being too crowded. Just as pricing the busiest lines at the busiest times of day has some economic logic to it, so does pricing the busiest roads at their most crowded.

Staley also suggests a "value capture" mechanism for WMATA to keep some of the tax revenue that comes from greater development around Metro stations. That would let the economic growth that transit brings help pay for transit. Again, it's a sound idea, though Staley seems not to understand the dynamics of the DC region in his explanation. Tomorrow, we'll take a look at this in more detail.

There are a lot of people in the Washington region who have very thoughtful and thoroughly informed recommendations about Metro. There are many transit advocates like the Action Committee for Transit, Coalition for Smarter Growth, MetroRiders.Org, Sierra Club Sustainable Metro DC campaign, and many more. There are the people from the Board of Trade, whose opinions I sometimes strongly disagree with but who are never just ignorant.

There's also the transportation team at the Post, led by the very knowledgeable and always thoughtful Bob Thomson and recently made stronger with the addition of Dana Hedgpeth covering Metro. Coming down at the opposite end of the ignorance-knowledge spectrum is Thomson's article today about the terrible 2030 Group report. I was very nervous about what the Post would write about this story, since 2030 employs a high-powered PR firm which promoted the study far and wide.

A few recent Post traffic articles (by other reporters) have unquestioningly bought into whatever spin comes in a press release, like Ashley Halsey III's coverage of a Governors Highway Safety Association report on traffic fatalities which blamed pedestrians or the flawed TTI report that mis-measured traffic congestion.

Thomson, on the other hand, penned a paragon of what a traffic study analysis article should be. He looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the report, and not just by quoting one person in favor and one opposed, but by actually understanding the intricacies of the issue.

Thomson notes that the study looked at "what transportation programs are most needed to ease congestion, [but] this is not how governments and commuters think." Instead, congestion relief is one priority along with "the creation of new travel options, economic development and neighborhood revitalization."

He notes how it's tough to assign credibility to a study which relies on anonymous "experts" and ends up suggesting many of the same projects the authors already were promoting, but also argues that these problems "[don't] mean the ideas are bad or unworthy of discussion."

While giving most of the article's space to explaining specifically what the study advocates, he also cautions about drawing too many conclusions from "experts":

Still, there's a problem with asking transportation professionals for solutions, and it's the same type of problem that was defined by a psychology professor named Abraham Maslow: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

In the case of the transportation engineers, designers and planners, their main solutions are expensive transportation projects. There are many serious obstacles to those solutions, and plenty of alternative ideas coming from outside the ranks of transportation professionals.

Thomson is far less skeptical of an Outer Beltway crossing of the Potomac than I'd like him to be. He writes, "Drivers stuck on the Dulles Toll Road before the Beltway each morning have said they would love to see a new bridge farther west on the Potomac River to draw off traffic."

But this illustrates exactly the problem with this proposal: these drivers he's citing don't actually want the crossing, they just want other people off the road to ease traffic. Building a new road doesn't actually relieve traffic, as even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges. So these commuters Thomson hears from might think they'd benefit from a new crossing, but they really won't.

Every reporter should read Thomson's story as an example of how to thoughtfully analyze, rather than regurgitate, a report that comes out from a group with an agenda and a well-funded PR operation. And every editor should look at Staley's piece as a cautionary tale to beware op-eds on local issues from national organizations with an agenda, a well-funded PR operation, and little actual knowledge of local circumstances.

Parsons was a co-author of the transportation priority study I criticized and has started a new organization to lobby on transportation. He and Bob Chase touted the study on TBD last week, so Bruce DePuyt had Stewart and me on to discuss the issue further.

Which arguments did you find most persuasive, on either side of the issue?

Also, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton appeared in the second half of the hour to discuss the recent Walmart ruling, Congressional budget riders that affect DC, and rallies at the White House.