McCain to WMATA: Drop Dead
For obvious reasons, disagreements about federal rail policy have not been at the forefront of the current campaign. But the contrast between the candidates is actually quite stark. Barack Obama would be the first President from a large, transit-oriented city with an instinctive understanding of how this stuff matters since JFK. Joe Biden is one of the Senate’s top rail champions. By contrast, Arizona during the McCain Era has been a poster child of bad planning and transportation policy featuring a number of cities growing rapidly in the worst possible ways, resulting in huge ecological footprints and now a total real estate collapse. But beyond that, McCain has actually distinguished himself from the average conservative Republican in his fanatical opposition to high-quality rail.
The latest example comes as he voted “no” on a critical bill to fund the DC area Metro system. The bill will (if signed into law) provide $150 million per year (or as the Post more dramatically puts it, “$1.5 billion over ten years) in federal Metro funding if and only if that’s matched by dedicated revenue streams from the affected jurisdictions. That’s important because the money is important, but the requirement attached to it is also important since it’ll force/cajole the creation of fixed funding streams that will put the system on a firm financial footing going forward. Among other things, this was a critical bill for the future of Virginia, whose recent economic growth has been driven by good infrastructure connections to DC.
51 Responses to “McCain to WMATA: Drop Dead”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Wow, McCain actually voted on something?
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Nobody rides public transit. It’s too crowded.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
I think McCain and other “conservatives” view all public transportation spending as wasteful pork rather than as an essential component of a comprehensive transportation plan. If you think of transportation as consisting solely of automobiles then everything else looks like a boondoggle.
I know here in Seattle we hear complaints about public transportation spending all the time. People seem to believe that the only way to reduce traffic is to spend more money on roads, when in fact the opposite is generally true. Every person who avails himself of the public transportation system is one less car contributing to traffic. An enlightened driver would realize that shifting as many people as possible off the roads would make driving more enjoyable for those that remain.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Among other things, this was a critical bill for the future of Virginia, whose recent economic growth has been driven by good infrastructure connections to DC.
Wha…?
Much of the industry growth in Va has been driven by good cheap land near an airport — Dulles. The real growth has happened in the Reston/Herndon corridor, which has been utterly transformed. AOL is Hq’d out there, and a lot of tech businesses followed suit.
I bring this up because those areas have few transit options into town — once you get out past Tyson’s Corner (another area of growth), it’s the highway or no way.
And being near DC is a nice advantage, to be sure, but the “infrastructure connections” are actually quite poor compared to, say, Maryland. You don’t have to cross a river to get into town from Md, so you aren’t “bridge-locked” the way Virginia is.
Just to take one example (but it’s a pretty big one): a couple of years ago, the Gannett Company (USA Today) moved away from Rosslyn, where you could easily metro or even walk into town, out to Tyson’s Corner, which is a car ride or a couple of bus connections away.
This is not to say that there hasn’t been residential growth here in Arlington — there has, and transit may have a lot to do with it. But so do the jobs that sprang up in the tech corridor where transit was weaker, and which were driven by different considerations.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Brad:
You, sir, are an idiot. There are hundreds of airports in America. What makes Dulles special is that it is the #2 airport for DC. The Reston/Herndon corridor did not develop out of nowhere from the miraculous virgin birth of AOL. It developed because, in the early days of the internet, physical proximity to the Pentagon, the Defense Information Systems Agency, and other Federal institutions that were funding high tech was a huge business advantage.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Phoenix has a light-rail system under construction.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I’m not sure why Federal funds (which come from everywhere) should be preferentially dedicated to improving the transit infrastructure of one particular region. We here in Pittsburgh could use an upgraded transit system, too, but we have no deus ex machina funding source.
Now, if the Feds want to back improved transit in all our cities, I’m all for that. But there does seem to be the attitude among D.C. denizens that “OF COURSE federal money should be spent to improve the quality of life for people who live here”.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Among other things, this was a critical bill for the future of Virginia, whose recent economic growth has been driven by good infrastructure connections to DC.
Ah, right. More faith-based policy analysis.
A 2006 Brookings Institution study concluded that the Washington Metrorail system has a net social cost of between $195 million and $267 million.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
again, though, what does METRO funding have to do with growth in the Tysons-Dulles corridor — which is the LEAST transit accessible part of the washington area/ Nobody is arguing that NOVA is rich because of federal contract — but I don’t see how giving money away to Metro helps growth in outer NoVA. If anything, having DC go up in flames would probably help growth in outer NoVA.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I’m not sure why Federal funds (which come from everywhere) should be preferentially dedicated to improving the transit infrastructure of one particular region.
When that “one particular region” happens to be the greater area of the national capital, and when the majority of the system is located in city that is mostly dependent on federal funds for operation due to its political status, it makes perfect sense.
Anyhow, apparently the Senator doesn’t ride the orange line with his fellow Arlingtonians. If he did, he’d know why WMATA desperately needs more funding.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Good infrastructure connections to DC? DC produces nothing, Matt - except hot air and waste. Virginia’s recent growth in federal buildings might be connected to that, but I’d call that more of a problem.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Sounds like most of the comments so far are from people who have never lived in or near DC.
I live in Arlington and work in Silver Spring, and I see public transit access as VITAL to city living (I lived in NYC for three years before I came here, and was born and raised in Boston before that).
As expensive and crowded as the Metro is, it still means I’m not spending 2 hours per day (or more) driving, which saves me money on gas and car expenses (that I own a car at all is due to inheritance rather than seeking one out). It also preserves my sanity, gives me the chance to be a literate person (when else does one find time to read?), and has the obvious ton of environmental benefits.
When people say, “I don’t see why Federal money should be involved,” perhaps they are not realizing that the HUGE majority of the people who ride the Metro within the District proper are (a) Federal employees, or (b) Tourists, here to see the way the capital of a great nation works. Here’s a hint: not so impressive when it smells like old dog fur and gets you stuck in a tunnel for an hour.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
DC produces nothing, Matt - except hot air and waste.
James? Fuck off. Shouldn’t you be doing your job in sales or whatever worthless work you do in your neighborhood that would be even more of a pointless shithole were it not for its proximity to DC?
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I’m not sure why Federal funds (which come from everywhere) should be preferentially dedicated to improving the transit infrastructure of one particular region.
The metro is actually a massive inter-state rapid transit system, one of the largest in the country, which goes straight through the capital, so I can understand why there may be a significant federal interest in the matter. In addition, transport by metro keeps people off the interstate highway system, ensuring better and more efficient transport of interstate transport and commerce.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
James? Fuck off.
Tyro? Go fuck yourself you fucking fuck.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Sounds like most of the comments so far are from people who have never lived in or near DC. I live in Arlington and work in Silver Spring, and I see public transit access as VITAL to city living
From a 2005 Washington Post survey of Metro usage by DC area residents:
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Kate, with all respect as a fellow Arlington resident, the “economic growth” in NovA isn’t the Orange line — it is further out where Metro doesn’t run. Does that make Orange line neighborhoods more attractive for reverse commuters to Tysons — yes, a bit. So the original point that “Metro drives growth in VA” is BS. Metro is nice and if the feds want to subsidize it, that is great. It is not what is making Virginia wealthy.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Tom Veil,
You should read more closely. I never said that the city wasn’t an advantage. Clearly, it is, which is what I meant when I said “And being near DC is a nice advantage, to be sure.”
I said that the infrastructure connections, such as Metro stations or light rail that Matt promotes, are not particularly strong in the areas that have seen the greatest growth in Virginia. This, it seems to me, undercuts the argument that “recent economic growth has been driven by good infrastructure connections to DC.”
You missed it, but being near DC and the airport is a great reason for Reston to succeed — compared to Scranton. Compared to the other, more infrastructure-friendly areas around DC? Not so much. When the most successful areas are also among the least transit-friendly, it might be time to reconsider the hypothesis.
Douchebag.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Well I live in the district and ride Metro every day. and I think it’s a good system overall, and if it’s not as great as some others, it’s only because there aren’t enough stops and trains should be more frequent.
According to everything I’ve read, ridership has been breaking records since gas prices started rising over the spring. I see it everyday too, as there are way more people riding now than there used to be. The problem is that the system is getting old. Tracks are sagging, trains are breaking down, and for the love of God the escalators never ever work.
I’ve lived in places with and without public transport, and let me tell you, I prefer BY FAR not having to drive, so I appreciate Metro every day, and think every city could benefit from such a system.
Also, just a brief point on driving: It’s the only activity I know of that is engaged in so often and so ubiquitously where if you aren’t constantly paying attention, you are likely to die. And even if you are paying attention, if someone else isn’t, you still die.
Sadly, when driving, most people I think, are not paying attention.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Well I live in the district and ride Metro every day. and I think it’s a good system overall, and if it’s not as great as some others, it’s only because there aren’t enough stops and trains should be more frequent.
As a quick addendum — I like, support, and appreciate the metro system for what it is, and support funding it. I wish there was a station in Tyson’s, but that armwrestling might never end.
I just don’t like the additional bonus argument that has been presented. It’s kinda lazy.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I have to agree with a fair amount of Brad L’s arguments: Reston and Tyson’s benefited from proximity to DC and were designed for an era of cheap gas in mind, not because there was any major transit infrastructure out there. However, without the major transit infrastructure, one could claim that the density of DC wouldn’t be possible, thus creating no reason for companies to locate themselves in the Virginian exurbs in the first place.
I actually interviewed for a job in Reston, and the only way to work out there and use transit involved moving out to the West Falls Church metro and using a bus to get to work and using the metro when I wanted to visit friends downtown. Living in downtown DC or even Arlington and commuting to Reston by metro and bus was impractical, and commuting by car would just be a formula for wasting money on gas and wasting my time and psyche dealing with a long drive every day.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
The Metro is the only thing I miss about D.C. Granted, it’s not perfect, and could use more stops, but compared to a place like Kansas City — which has ZERO public transportation that’s effective or worth a damn — it’s a freaking godsend.
I will note, as other commenters have, that when I was there (’96 - ‘97) the Metro really hadn’t done a damn thing for Reston, Herndon, and the other western areas of NoVa. I lived in Temple Hills — where they were just building a new stop — but worked out in Reston, and taking the Metro just wouldn’t work. It was all cars, all the time, heading there and back.
So unless that has changed (and it doesn’t sound like it has), I’m not sure why Matt made that claim.
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I lived in Temple Hills — where they were just building a new stop — but worked out in Reston, and taking the Metro just wouldn’t work. It was all cars, all the time, heading there and back.
So unless that has changed (and it doesn’t sound like it has), I’m not sure why Matt made that claim.
The proposal for the Silver Line metro out to Dulles includes a stop at the intersection of the Reston Parkway the Dulles Toll Road, which would be walking distance from Reston Center.
This seems to be the history of modern public transit: people find an empty area and start building like mad and it becomes a hotbed of political opposition to transit funding for the “inner ring.” Then, ultimately, that area becomes to crowded and traffic congested, and there starts to be a lot of agitation from the people in that area to improve public transit access. Then people start looking for the next empty area. Rinse, repeat.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I know McCain has congressional staff. Since I assume not all walk or get free parking places, I assume some ride Metro as well and since they are government employees have access to the MetroCheck subsidy. Since that subsidy doesn’t cover the whole trip for most riders, that means that to improve/maintain Metro, that fees go up over time. Which means his staffers will have to pay more.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
For what it’s worth, Mixner’s favored analysis, which “concluded that the Washington Metrorail system has a net social cost of between $195 million and $267 million,” also concludes that San Francisco’s BART system is the only urban rail operation in America that produces a net social benefit.
When one remembers that New York has a transit system, and when one then reads that the study authors explicitly conclude that the NYC subway system is a net social debit on the City, it’s time to reject the study. Studies of immeasurable things like the “value” of a subway system always involve estimates and shortcuts. When the results are preposterous on their face, that’s a sign for the authors to start over.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Flynn,
For what it’s worth, Mixner’s favored analysis, which “concluded that the Washington Metrorail system has a net social cost of between $195 million and $267 million,” also concludes that San Francisco’s BART system is the only urban rail operation in America that produces a net social benefit.
Yes indeed. As the authors write:
When one remembers that New York has a transit system, and when one then reads that the study authors explicitly conclude that the NYC subway system is a net social debit on the City, it’s time to reject the study.
Brilliant. And your basis for rejecting the study, other than “I don’t like what it’s saying,” is……?
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Mixner: “Brilliant. And your basis for rejecting the study, other than “I don’t like what it’s saying,” is……?”
…is the same as that which you use for rejecting every study you don’t like: sheer incredulity.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“Jer”
sheer incredulity.
“Sheer incredulity” not a rational basis for rejecting a study. Do you have any serious critique to offer?
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Aha, the scare quotes are back! You are truly a man of stunning wit.
Here’s a bit of critique about the absurdity of the study’s assumptions, specifically its assumption that the societal cost of completely replacing rail travel with automotive travel would be only $1.2 billion:
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
“Jer”
Here’s a bit of critique
“A bit” is right. Your link doesn’t work. It gets the message “Object not found!”
specifically its assumption that the societal cost of completely replacing rail travel with automotive travel would be only $1.2 billion:
The authors of the Brookings study do not assert that “the societal cost of completely replacing rail travel with automotive travel would be only $1.2 billion” or make any claim remotely like that. Before you dash off another ill-considered response, I suggest you try reading the study. Carefully.
As for the text you quote (wherever that comes from), it’s laughable. The author is apparently unaware of the existence of buses, taxis, two-wheeled motor vehicles and bicycles, not to mention telecommuting, non-traditional work schedules, and carpooling above one extra occupant per five cars. And he offers no serious argument against an expansion of parking in Manhattan to accommodate more commuting by private cars.
The authors of the Brookings study cite the academic and government sources of their estimates of the congestion benefits of urban rail systems. If you have a serious critique of these estimates to offer, present it.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I don’t have any links to offer, but you really don’t need an authoritative source to dismiss a study that suggests New York could even function without the subway and rely on cars. As a New Yorker, I declare the proposition preposterous on its face.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 am
I cannot expect someone who has lost track of how many houses he owns to understand the importance of public transportation for the rest of us in Washington (or Pittsburgh or anywhere else). Would we be arguing about $150 million/year for ten years on public transportation if, say, Exxon while continuing to break profit records weren’t also given, say, millions of dollars in tax breaks? Is your gasoline getting cheaper?
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Wow, there is real animosity between NOVA and DC, probably because NOVA sucks balls so hard. METROOPENSDOORS, yo.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
@Mixner:
Your scare quotes around my name make even me doubt its veracity. I had to pull out my drivers license just to check. And even now, as it lays on the table, I look at it askance on occasion, to make sure it still reads true.
“Your link doesn’t work.”
Try it again. Note, though, that you screwed up your own link (you forgot the http:// part). No one complained, though. We are too in awe of your fearsome wit.
“The authors of the Brookings study do not assert that “the societal cost of completely replacing rail travel with automotive travel would be only $1.2 billion” or make any claim remotely like that.”
Ahem:
The authors then take that “congestion cost savings”, and translate that magically into “societal net benefits”. The table is on page 13.
The author is completely aware, I’m sure. He’s simply making a point. One which seems to have whizzed by your head. If points had seats, they’d be able to form a transit system of their very own, moving people from one side of your head to another.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Just for fun, lets run the critique’s main argument again, only this time with busses:
1 million people come into the CBD per day. Assume they have no subway access, and instead all take the bus. Assume a 100% magic load factor per bus. The model of bus used by the NYCT is the Orion V, with a seat capacity of 39 and a length of 40′ (or about 1 person per foot in length). To move those 1 million people into the CBD would require 25,500 busses, or 194 linear miles worth of busses.
Assume the CBD is 12 long blocks wide. That makes 2.4 miles for each long block worth of road. Each long block’s associated short blocks are .05 miles long, and there are 13 per width, adding an additional 0.65 miles. So, parked bumper to bumper in a single lane, the number of busses needed to move 1 million people into the CBD would stretch the width of Manhattan, around each block, 12 long blocks wide and 64 short blocks long. Assuming these busses could take up two lanes around each block, they would stretch only 12 long blocks wide and 32 short blocks long.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:32 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 5:21 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:46 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:28 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 13th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
hai..nice blog yeah
March 14th, 2009 at 5:09 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Incredible site! viagra