Those people in Tysons Corner just won't give up on the idea of building a tunnel for the new Metro service there. Good for them. Even at the extra cost the tunnel is clearly the better plan if there is any consideration being paid to making Tysons a walkable and sustainable community in which people will live. Have you ever stood under or near an elevated section of Metro rail when a train is going by? Think of the section that goes over the parking lot at RFK stadium or over the beltway in Bethesda. Those suckers are loud. Now transfer that noise into Tysons Corner where residents, customers and employees are expected to walk through grassy, park-like areas; maybe having a picnic lunch at one of the many tables set up there. Talk about a buzzkill. Are overhead rails, visible out the windows of expensive condo buildings and office buildings, going to convince people and companies to locate there? I think not.
Bringing Metro to Tysons Corner is not a bad idea but it's an idea that really needs to be done right and from the beginning. It needs to be done in a way that will attract new opportunities for residential and business interests. Ugly, noisy overhead heavy rail will get people there and back but it will not convince people that they want to live or work there. And, while I have no memory of the construction plans for either method, I imagine that the impact on vehicle traffic will be even more horrendous for the overhead version. Hey, if planners really want to put rail above the roads then why didn't they consider a monorail system that could take passengers high above the Dulles Toll Road using the existing median rights of way. Oh yeah, that's something that Metro is not familiar with so it can't be done. During the planning process Metro officials were quick to haul out the old "same seat" argument although they never seemed to have an answer for why so many people took Metro bus and then transferred to Metro rail or why so many people take VRE or MARC and still transfer (change seats) to get a bus or onto rail.
The time to build a quality rail system into Tysons Corner is now because no one will be willing to rebuild it later. Instead of spending all their money on lawyer fees and studies maybe those interested in a tunnel should pool their money, have a couple of bake sales if needed, and pay for the difference themselves. Several of them could afford to pay for it all by themselves. After all, the tunnel will draw people to Tysons and not chase them away like the overhead rail will do.
+++++++++
Apparently the feds have turned down a chance to make a statement about the hazard of using a cell phone while driving. According to Automotive News, safety advocate Clarence Ditlow proposed the creation of a lockout mechanism that would shut off any communication device that was integrated to the vehicle when a motorist shifted the transmission into drive or reverse. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agreed that using cell phones while driving is dangerous but refused to act on Ditlow's proposal, which had been made last year. The ruling would have had the biggest impact on General Motors' OnStar service and the Sync system available through Ford. Perhaps it's no coincidence that these are the two largest U.S. automakers but it doesn't take too big a cynic to come to the conclusion that safety might be sacrificed for the sake of profit-making.
Steve Eldridge is a long-time reporter, observer and commentator on the Washington region's transportation issues. You can contact him directly by writing to: Steve@SprawlandCrawl.com. Unless otherwise requested, letters or portions of letters can be used within future columns. Letter writers will be identified by their first name and city/neighborhood.
I just want to throw this out about legal requirements. Most laws are made knowing that they can be broken. I'm not talking about being a criminal or a scofflaw. I'm talking about having the ability to, for example, deliberately disturb the peace and violate the noise ordinance in order to let your neighbors know their house is on fire. So when we're talking about making something impossible, as opposed to illegal, it's really important to try to think through the unintended consequences.
Posted by: Joe Chapline | July 31, 2008 at 07:03 PM
I think we can all agree that this discussion will be most fruitful if everyone involved tries to stay on topic. There's no need for anyone to be patronizing.
I agree that people were able to get things done without phones before they came along and can still do so. I only have had a cell phone for a couple of years, and managed just fine, too. However, I recognize that when used responsibly (hands-free, and for brief periods of time) they are an effective tool for people to communicate, and that they are particularly useful in unusual, emergency situations where safety is most in question. If safety is a priority, all tools for communication in the situation should be utilized to their fullest extent.
Cars also crash when people are distracted by playing with the radio. Yet no one has proposed removing radios from cars. Children in the backseat can distract a driver, but we don't ban people from driving with kids.
I'm not saying people should be able to drive all they want with a cell phone in one hand. I am saying, however, that a government agency should not pass an all-encompassing policy to ban a cell phone from working in a car. We should instead hold drivers responsible for their actions, enforce laws already on the books that ban people from talking with a handheld cell phone (I'm looking at you, DC), and educate drivers on the risks of their behavior.
Posted by: Melissa Esposito | July 31, 2008 at 06:39 PM
And how about, y'know, cars with passengers who use a phone while someone else drives? Or truckers using CBs? Or taxi drivers receiving dispatch?
I'm not familiar with this proposed law, but "shutting off any communication device that is integrated to the vehicle" sounds like overkill to the extreme.
Posted by: BeyondDC | July 31, 2008 at 06:05 PM
Ok Melissa, I'll bite.
If you need to make a phone call while driving, pull over and turn off the engine. It's not that hard. If you are being chased by bad guys, the police are not going to get there before the bad guys anyway. You need your full attention to safely drive to the police station. And remember, your saftey in no more important than any cyclist that you may plow into while trying to get away.
I bet you didn't know this but, people, even professionals, led happy, healthy and productive lives while operating automobiles before the invention of the mobile phone.
By the way, it's not safe to use your phone while biking either. Even though you see lots of multi-taskers pulling out in front of you while talking on their cell phones.
I think the granola bar detection device is a splendid idea. And given how dangerous automobiles are, they should have a sensor that detects whether you are wearing you driving helmet before the car can move forward.
Posted by: Safety is my No1 priority | July 31, 2008 at 03:09 PM
As for monorail, it has a whole set of problems associated with it. Monorail is a rare mode of transit around the world because except in very specific circumstances it's not as good as traditional rail. We're not building it in the Dulles corridor because it doesn't make sense to build it in the Dulles corridor, not because people at WMATA are afraid of things that are different.
Posted by: BeyondDC | July 31, 2008 at 01:44 PM
>those interested in a tunnel should pool their money, have a couple of bake sales if needed, and pay for the difference themselves
Unfortunately it's not that simple. If even $1 of Federal money is being used on the project, then the ENTIRE project has to meet FTA efficiency standards. Right now the Tysons Metro just barely meets those standards, so if the cost of the project goes up (even if all of the extra cost is paid for locally) then it will shift from "meets standards" to "doesn't meet standards" and the Feds will pull all their funding.
It's stupid, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it doesn't take into account that the project will be better and wouldn't cost the Feds any extra, but that's the way the FTA currently operates.
Until the FTA changes there is no hope at all of a Tysons subway, regardless of where the money might come from.
Posted by: BeyondDC | July 31, 2008 at 01:39 PM
Speaking as a person who is happily living car-free, I think that having a car turn your cell phone off is a terrible idea. What about the people trying to use one responsibly through a hands-free device? What about if you have an emergency and are on the phone with your family/doctor/veterinarian trying to explain the problem - and then your phone cuts you off? If you're being chased by someone and you're trying to drive away AND get the police to come, you wouldn't be able to do both? Granted, these are extreme situations, but they do happen.
There are also correlations between eating while driving and accidents. Should we also shut down all drive through windows and turn a car off if it detects you brought a granola bar into the driver's seat? Advocating responsible use of all potential distractions ought to be the goal, not blanket rules that prevent people from making their own decisions based on their individual situations.
Posted by: Melissa Esposito | July 31, 2008 at 12:38 PM
There are mountains of evidence that introducing an extra transfer significantly reduces transit ridership on a line. Just because some people do transfer doesn't mean there's not a huge cost to building something with a transfer. The SF Bay Area is a good example of a patchwork of incompatible transit systems and few people ride them because of it.
Plus, additional incompatible systems create additional maintenance costs, more labor costs for support staff for two systems, etc. Just look at the way Southwest Airlines uses only one plane type, something that's been widely hailed as a major advantage for them. Monorails have almost never been successful. We should absolutely only be considering expansion of our existing system.
Posted by: David Alpert | July 31, 2008 at 10:22 AM
You said.... "they never seemed to have an answer for why so many people took Metro bus and then transferred to Metro rail"
I don't know if you consider me part of "them" but I have an answer. It's because there are no (very few) busses that go from outside the beltway to the District.
All the inbound busses from Reston and Herndon park and rides (except 2) go to WFC metro. One of the two that go directly into the city, the 5A Dulles express, is so popular that you have to get in line 15-20 minutes early to guarantee a seat.
I find the express busses a much better option (when there is space available) than metro.
Posted by: Tom | July 31, 2008 at 09:09 AM