WaPo: Arlington's Delegates Should Fight for Loudoun!

When is an endorsement not an endorsement? When it calls the candidate great because he'd do the opposite of what his voters want.

That's the clear implication of the Post's endorsement of Aaron Ringel over Arlington incumbent Bob Brink:

Mr. Brink is a competent legislator but he has opposed widening Interstate 66. That wins points with some homeowners who'd be directly affected but does little for the tens of thousands of commuters who suffer that road daily. Mr. Ringel takes a broader regional view of that issue.

That Bob Brink! Always pandering to his constituents! Somehow I don't think Ringel will be changing his campaign slogan to: "Aaron Ringel: He Won't Look Out for Arlington Homeowners!"

Look, if delegates from the distant suburbs want to push to widen I-66, that's fine. It's their residents that chose a trade-off -- accepting a longer commutes in exchange for a less-expensive homes. And it's not their community that has to worry about the added pollution, noise and threats to local biking and walking trails, right? That's Arlington's concern. And that's why Arlington delegates like Bob Brink have taken the right stand against the expensive, inefficient widening of I-66.

But to say Arlington's delegate should give Arlington's concerns lower priority than those of other districts? That's just plain crazy.

As Lowell detailed at Blue Virginia, this is clearly the Post trying to look bipartisan by carefully endorsing a few Republicans with no chance of winning. I mean, we're really supposed to believe best candidate for Arlington is one who has nothing to say on his issues page about education, energy or the environment?

Cross-posted from Blue Virginia

Size Matters: Standing Firm Against I66 Expansion

It took exactly three posts into my blogging at The Green Miles to make my feelings clear on I66: I'm against expanding it. Three years later, my position is unchanged -- our precious transportation dollars would be better spent on Metro and our existing roads and bridges, which remain in desperate need of maintenance funding. On top of that, Arlingtonians shouldn't have to pay the price in higher pollution to smooth (and encourage) commutes from distant sprawling suburbs.

It's important for Arlington's leaders to take a strong stand. Heavy pressure to capitulate comes from representatives of places like Fairfax and Prince William, both in Richmond and on Capitol Hill, who don't much care about more pollution in Arlington or a wider I66 crowding out adjacent trails -- those problems will impact Arlington, not them.

That's why in my run for House of Delegates, I'm being crystal clear about my position on I66. If the delegate from the 47th district won't stand up for Arlington, who will?

It's become a major issue in the Democratic primary race:

Arlington Gets Steamrolled on I66

The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board reversed itself last week and decided to restore $75 million in funding to the region's transportation plan.

Arlington will get the majority of the pollution, while residents of Fairfax, Loudoun and beyond will get any benefits that come out of it. And those benefits are dubious -- if traffic moves any faster, more drivers will just pile in from existing alternate routes. Arlington commuters would get much more benefit from investment in Metro, telecommuting, carpooling and bike trails.

But if anyone had any doubts about who's getting the worst of the deal, check out this tweet:

Beating an Undead Trojan Horse

The state can't afford it. Arlington doesn't want it. So why does I66 expansion keep moving forward?

The Arlington Civic Federation, by a two-thirds margin, said no again this week to a wider I66. That's after a public hearing at Washington-Lee High School a couple of weeks back at which nearly everyone opposed expansion plans.

Pushed by Rep. Frank Wolf and Rep. Tom Davis, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) wants to make "spot improvements" to the westbound lanes of I66 in three spots in Arlington. "What’s proposed here is a gross waste of money," Arlington County Board Member Chris Zimmerman (D) said. "All you’re doing is moving the bottlenecks around."

Of course, the "spot improvements" are just a trojan horse to fully expand I66 through Arlington to three lanes. And that pesky media, not clued into the charade, keeps giving it away. One story back in October called plans to expand the road finalized. All this public comment is apparently just a charade.

With money for transportation projects so tight, funding for the $75 million "spot improvements" is being pieced together. Meanwhile, the federal government is reluctant to step in to help Metro with its current financing mess. Where are the priorities?

Wolf and Davis claim the widenings will help evacuations of DC in case of emergency. But if I66 is packed for a simple morning rush, how will a few extra stretches of pavement enable tens of thousands of cars to pile on at the same time? After all, even a full lane of highway moving at top speed can only handle something like 1,500 cars an hour.

But what do they care? The evacuation route argument is just another gimmick. The real goal is the same as it was when the road was first proposed in 1956 -- force the road on Arlington, and force Arlingtonians to breathe the pollution of vehicles from making their commutes from sprawling developments in Fairfax County, Loudoun County and beyond.

To learn more about the history of I66 and how to get involved, visit the Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation.

Cross-posted from RK

Ask The Green Miles: Should Virginia Widen I66 Through Arlington?

A question from What's Up Eric ...

What about all this stuff about widening I-66? My immediate answer is no, we don’t want to encourage more driving, but what is the answer? I’m not sure the Orange Line can handle any more Metro riders at rush hour either.

The short answer is, given our transportation history of rejecting smart solutions in favor of the politically expedient, why wouldn't we expect Virginia to expand I66?

Originally, Interstate 66 through Arlington was proposed as an eight-lane double-decker highway. Only intense opposition from Arlington residents limited the road to its current four lanes and led to efficiencies like HOV and space for the Orange Line in the median. The website of the Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation provides an excellent background of Interstate 66, chronicle of local opposition, and details of current expansion plans.

The greatest myth about transportation in the DC area is that our problems are due to capacity issues. Not true. We have usage problems related to our work and social systems being set up around single-car drivers all leaving their single family homes in the suburbs at the same time trying to get on the same roads to the same city where their jobs are located. The majority of DC-area workers:

* Drive in their cars alone
* Go from rural/suburban areas to DC or adjacent areas
* Leave home between 6am and 10am
* Leave work between 3:30pm and 7:30pm

Our region's elected officials have done absolutely nothing to discourage these patterns. Home prices encourage long commutes. Employers stubbornly demand workers come to the office from 9am-5pm daily so they can be supervised in person, even though many of us are computer drones who could just as easily work from home. When Metro tried to encourage off-peak and reverse commuting last December, it got little support.

So what do we get? Attempts at easy answers.

Wider highways. More of them.

Even though a new lane of highway can only move 1,500-2,000 vehicles an hour. Even though the DC area is already an EPA nonattainment area for ground-level ozone and fine particulates.

And from the recent "forums" on proposals to add spot expansions to I66, VDOT seems hell bent on adding that pavement. You can read more on the strong negative Arlington reaction to meetings in the Sun Gazette and the Arlington Connection.

Eric is right that Metro's Orange Line is stressed. The system as a whole passed 200 million customer trips for the first time in fiscal year '06 (July '05-June '06). Especially during the height of the morning rush, the slightest problem can send ripples throughout the system, a problem I've experienced many times.

But we ask more and more of Metro without giving the system the support it needs. Metro continues to lack a dedicated funding source, even though it's the only major transit system in the area to rely on three states/districts for funding, meaning Metro has to beg, borrow, and steal every year to make ends meet.

Instead, we try to pave our way out of the problem without trying to encourage more carpooling, biking/walking, or reverse or off-peak commuting. Knowing the history, I would expect nothing less.