Dear Dr. Gridlock,

I am very concern about pedestrians walking across a busy street, not using the traffic crosswalks, but crossing the streets in the middle of the medium strip. Pedestrians are not being cautious and are not being careful, and motorists don't see them clearly. I think its time to tell the pedestrians to use the traffic crosswalk signals.

I have no problems with the concept of a toll road in principle if the tolls are used to pay for the construction of, or improvements to, that road. The New Jersey Turnpike is the classic example in that the Turnpike receives no separate funding from the state--all funding comes from tolls and from the service areas (the latter presumably through contracting with the restaurants and with Sunoco). This seems to me to be the ideal toll scenario--if you use the road, you pay for it, and if you don't want to pay for it, you just use a different road. I have a problem with the idea of using tolls to pay for other projects (for example, if the Wilson Bridge were tolled to allow Virginia to fund the extension of the Metrorail to Dulles). The bridges and tunnels in New York City fall into the latter category--I have no problem with the idea of paying a toll to help fund the bridge maintenance, but it bugs me that half the toll goes to mass transit funding.

I'm not sure what I think about the idea of using state funding to help build a toll road where the toll revenue will go to the private investor. If the toll revenue were to be used to pay off BOTH the state investment AND the private investor through some sort of revenue-sharing mechanism, I think it wouldn't bug me, but there's something not right about the idea of the state spending the money for the benefit of a private company. Of course, the state does run speedtraps on the Dulles Greenway even though it's safe to go 75 to 80 on there, so perhaps we'll have to expect similar revenue-generation scams on the HOT lanes, hmm?

I don't have a problem with the state helping out with paying for the toll roads, but the resulting tolls darn well better be lower since the taxpayer has already paid part of the toll through the government.

"I have a problem with the idea of using tolls to pay for other projects (for example, if the Wilson Bridge were tolled to allow Virginia to fund the extension of the Metrorail to Dulles). The bridges and tunnels in New York City fall into the latter category--I have no problem with the idea of paying a toll to help fund the bridge maintenance, but it bugs me that half the toll goes to mass transit funding."

I couldn't agree with you more.

And, BTW, the Dulles Toll Road tolls have appropriated to fund the Dulles rail boondoggle and pork barrel. That's why the tolls were raised in May, 2005. Have you noticed how the road surface has since deteriorated?

It galls me to see bridge and highway tolls being diverted to transit. Especially when when we can't get any new roads built.

Those who use transit should pay its full cost just like those who use roads. Where is it written that EVERYONE must subsidize transit, whether they use it or not?

Frankly, I'm tired of sitting in traffic while my taxes and tolls are funding someone else's transit ride. ESPECIALLY when I'm seeing repeated reports about roads being held up and even canceled because of "opposition" - opposition that nearly always comes from transit advocates who demand more and more transit.

When is enough finally enough?

The Dulles Toll Road issue is a little more difficult in my view and the reason is that, in theory, the Metro line down that road ought to improve the traffic on there. (I haven't been out that way in a month or two, so I can't comment on the pavement issue.) To the extent the Metro line relieves the traffic on that road, I have less of a problem with diverting toll revenue to it in the sense that it's in the nature of a road improvement, but it's a close call and that's why I didn't cite it in my earlier post.

I do agree with you that Metro to Dulles is a huge waste of money under WMATA's current model. The only way a line out that way could work, in my opinion, is if there were some way to skip all those stops in Arlington. Think about New York's model, for example, or the Piccadilly Line in London--if you ride from a station that's way out at the end of the line (say, Flushing in Queens or Heathrow Airport in London), you get to skip a bunch of the intermediate stops, which makes the ride tolerable. If you had to stop everywhere all the way into the urban core, it would take forever and nobody would want to endure it (especially in London with no air conditioning). The other problem with the Dulles line is that it will affect capacity on the Orange and Blue Lines because the Dulles trains will terminate at Stadium-Armory, which is the first pocket track east of West Falls Church. The Blue Line is already underserved as it is. I live near the Van Dorn stop and I can promise that I will never switch to Metro if they decrease service to my area in the way they are planning!

I think that a real train along the lines of the Heathrow Express would be a more successful and realistic option for Dulles, although I have no idea where the tracks would go or how much it would cost to acquire the right-of-way. The Heathrow Express travels at 100 mph and runs from the airport to Paddington Station in 15 minutes (the Tube takes an hour). I daresay a train of that sort would draw a LOT of commuters to park at Dulles Airport and ride the train. It might even attract business travellers who normally turn up their noses at taking anything other than a cab. I suppose the fare would be high, and that's a potential problem (the Heathrow Express was £13 last time I rode), but I imagine a Metro ride from out there isn't going to be cheap either.

"The Dulles Toll Road issue is a little more difficult in my view and the reason is that, in theory, the Metro line down that road ought to improve the traffic on there. "

It won't; even studies commissioned and paid for by Dulles rail's most rabid supporters have proven that.

No matter, because they don't care about reducing traffic, anyway. Dulles rail isn't meant to reduce traffic; it's meant to increase property values and spur development along its right-of-way.

I would dare say Dulles rail advocates are counting on traffic to get WORSE and thereby force some people out of their cars. If that happens, they can THEN exaggerate the ridership numbers to justify more subsidies and even more expensive Metro rail to the NEXT outer burb they want to develop.

And WE'RE paying for it. I don't know how any intelligent working taxpayer can support this boondoggle.