Notice, however, I didn't say quick and decisive.
There's a bill brewing in Olympia to meld Sound Transit into a larger, regional transportation agency with an at least partially elected board. The P-I calls it an enlargement of Sound Transit. The local liberal blogs fear it actually means the doom of that agency (see here and here). The details of the current proposal look imperfect, but the local libs need to figure out a big chunk of the Puget Sound voting populace needs some more direct accountability before they feel comfortable with big hikes in transportation spending.
Speaking of the transit zealots, a prominent left-of-center Prop 1 opponent is out with a counter-proposal, which not so stunningly excludes new lane miles. Ugh.
Concurrently, Knute Berger highlights a good point on the issue of tolling while heaping compliments on Tim Eyman: voter are ok with tolling for specific projects (especially ones the don't use). They're not ok with broader use of tolls, which not enough policy leaders around here seem to grasp.
Long story short, transportation policy is still a mess.
**Sidenote: speaking of Sound Transit, Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon recently appointed Edmonds City Councilwoman Deanna Dawson to a slot on that agency's board. Deanna is an excellent choice and should be expected to serve well in that capacity.
The problem is she's also a top aide to Reardon. I don't think that's an actual problem because Deanna is a strong personality, but it does create a rather unpleasant appearance of conflict of interest. If there weren't such a void of truly talented people in local politics to fill such positions I'd be more concerned. As it stands, it's simply a reminder of how incestuous local politics can be around here.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 23, 2008 09:37 PM | Email ThisHe's the only one out there doing anything remotely sensible about traffic...
Posted by: Michele on January 23, 2008 10:16 PMThey need money but don't have the balls to make the budget cuts,and are afraid of being punished by the SEIU.
So they resort to social engineering because it won't cost them votes..
Nice going, nimrods. You've created LA, only with one tenth the people, crappy weather, and no culture to speak of. This must be "progress" since it's what "progressives" want.
DUHH!!
What a novel approach! Sometimes I'm amazed at the simply profound statements from our Mayor's office.
So, in the mold of most Gregoire's career, we double its responsibilities and tell the sheeples that the new agency will do better.
Huh?
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2008 06:50 AMMost of the riders come from Seattle, yet
a fixed larger percentage of the revenue is allocated to Sound Transit already.
As a Seattle rider, we get the ratty run down busses, while the suburban 1 way commuter runs get the nice new ones. Downtown routes (12, 10, 14, 43) get service cuts, because there's no money. Our busses are full of stinking bums and violent meth addicts, yet no police ever appear and bus drivers get less and less involved. Our busses are packed full on a regular basis, we already were committed to bus service from the days before Sound Transit even existed, yet our service has degraded while suburban service is coddled on one-way commuter runs that are useless if you don't work in the same direction or time as the planners decided.
And now you want to make it a regional elected office.
Seems to me that Seattle's already being ignored in favor of Suburban riders, who already don't care and won't ride unless they happen to live next to a park and ride. Actually riderships up. but it took $3 gas to do it.
Stop whining in the suburbs and get on board, you didn't want more roads, you didn't want to fund a train, and now you are whining about a bus board. What kind of transit DO you favor, personal cars only but without upgrading roads? AT some point you low tax fans are gonna have to realize something takes money. I guess it could all be private taxis and shuttles only.
Posted by: DaveD on January 24, 2008 07:02 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004142028_transit24m.html
The buses handled an estimated 110 million boardings last year, nearly a 7 percent increase over the 2006 number, the agency reported Wednesday. It is the largest increase in at least a decade, officials said. Buses handled about 365,000 boardings per weekday.
According to the article they are crying out for funding for new buses, which seem flexible enough to handle the point-to-point type of transportation that suits the Puget Sound (we are not a hub and spoke).
Yet, rather than asking for the reasonable and relative low amounts to keep Metro going as is, the dimwits in the Gregoire Administration keep proposing new gigantic and unworkable bureaucracies!
Buses are good.
Buses work.
Buses are flexible.
The only system that would be better are computer controlled taxis...but we'll save that for later.
What I like most about Tim Eyman and I-985 is that he proposes immediate, and relatively cheap modifications to current transit that will have impacts. If the Legislature took a similar look at key choke points and other low hanging fruit that would quickly ease congestion, then I'd be more in favor of their work.
But as near as anyone can tell from their actions, the true intent is a Progressive advance of bureaucracy and large ticket projects coupled with an anti-car environmentalist alliance. That's not going to reduce congestion, which is the reality for the majority of the populace, regardless of their political views.
So Tim Eyman is going to continue to be popular, and its mostly Olympia's own fault.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 24, 2008 08:43 AMJukie Anderson - For nearly 20 years, Julie has been an active part of Tacoma – as a community advocate, public servant, and commonsense administrator. Currently working as a senior policy advisor for the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Julie's past professional service comes from a wide variety of fields, including: Political Strategist for Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington, Executive Director of the YWCA of Pierce County, District Manager for the Dome District Neighborhood Business District, Campaign Manager for Tacoma United For Fairness, and a variety of criminal justice positions.
Julie Anderson - For nearly 20 years, Julie has been an active part of Tacoma – as a community advocate, public servant, and commonsense administrator. Currently working as a senior policy advisor for the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Julie's past professional service comes from a wide variety of fields, including: Political Strategist for Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington, Executive Director of the YWCA of Pierce County, District Manager for the Dome District Neighborhood Business District, Campaign Manager for Tacoma United For Fairness, and a variety of criminal justice positions.
Another thing that pisses me off, my car gets much better mileage when it goes 60 mph, not 6 mph (before some knucklehead lib thinks I drive an SUV, i don't. I drive a jetta TDi which by the way gets better mileage than your vaunted Prius for half the price). We could reduce our pollution by a factor of 10 if the roads allowed our cars to operate efficiently. If that happened why would we need mass transit? All of that gas tax money would be reduced because our cars were allowed to operate efficiently. We all know that can't happen. Olympia will get their money somehow. Done ranting. Feel better :)
Posted by: Guinness02 on January 24, 2008 09:24 AMWhat am I missing here?
Posted by: russell garrard on January 24, 2008 10:16 AMYou can see it my blog or download the PDF version.
(Apologize for the cross-post for those of you following Jim Miller's thread above. I saw Jim's piece first, but in reading Eric's thought this would be an appropriate thread...)
Granted the diesel does put out more pollutants that a gas engine on a per gallon basis. I just burn less gas to go the same distance. With ULSD coming down the pipe I am thinking of selling the tdi and getting a new one. At that point I use less fuel and emit less pollutants that a Prius and my "hey look at me I care about the environment" factor is essentially zero.
Posted by: Guinness02 on January 24, 2008 11:13 AMYou're saying it isn't gas tax money - which taxes are you referring to?
Posted by: BA on January 24, 2008 11:32 AM1) Of course the nicer busses are on the suburb route, because the other ones break down so often that you want the replacements close by in case you need them. Secondly, if they do break down (which is often enough) they jam up traffic for miles.
2) The biggest problem with people riding the bus from the suburbs isn't getting to work (although it takes several busses), it's getting home again. The local busses come about every 10-15 minutes where the suburbs have only 3 busses on a normal run and they are scheduled in a way that you can't work a normal 8-hour shift and still take the bus. However, this usually isn't a concern as the bus is normally 30 minutes late anyway. But you can't make the assumption that it will be late, cause if you miss it, then you're stuck downtown with no way home.
3) The train from the north is a joke. It runs twice in the morning and twice at night and again, if you have a job where you need to work until 4:30pm you may as well forget about it. Trafic is such that you can't get on a bus back to the station before it leaves.
And speaking if the train, first you have to get there early enough to ride, get a parking spot if possible (that you have to pay for) get on the train that takes an hour to go from Everett to Seattle (30mph), and then catch a bus that takes you back to the city (ride-free zone starts a few blocks away from the station). When you average out the costs, it's less to drive your car downtown and pay for gas and parking than it is to ride the train daily.
4) Last gripe about the busses it that the temperature is extremely cold. Calling Transit does no good as they tell you the temperature is set to accomodate the warmest person on the bus otherwise people would complain about being hot.
Tell Ron Sims and all the city workers to ride the bus every day for a month everywhere they go and then come back and tell us how great it is.
My guess is they wouldn't last a week.
Posted by: Ken on January 24, 2008 11:50 AMCorn, tree pulp and hemp are sources for clean-burning alcohol, methanol and methane gas. These 'biofuels' contain no sulfur, the pollutant that causes acid rain. Growing the fuel also produces oxygen, to balance the oxygen consumed during combustion. Engines stay cleaner and the air remains much cleaner.
Hemp may be the most profitable and productive fuel crop that can be grown in many areas of America. Hemp can produce about 1000 gallons of methanol per acre, four times as much as can be produced from trees. Fuel can be produced locally, reducing transportation costs. The production process, called biomass conversion, is safe and clean. It would create a domestic fuel industry, freeing us from Middle East oil dependency, providing jobs and keeping our currency at home.
Hemp fuel needs no taxpayer subsidies, as oil receives. The Department of Energy estimated that fuel could be produced from hemp for about 36 cents per gallon. In New South Wales, Australia the Minister of Energy told the parliament they should consider burning confiscated hemp to produce electricity. "It burns at extremely high temperature, produces a lot of power and is cheaper (and much cleaner) to burn than coal."
Hemp was the subject of a 1991 conference held in Wisconsin. One speaker pointed out our government spends $26 billion each year to pay farmers not to cultivate their land. Instead of this waste of taxpayer money, farmers could grow hemp or other fuel crops. This could completely end our dependence on foreign oil.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 24, 2008 12:30 PMhttp://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 24, 2008 12:36 PM• Growing and harvesting the stuff has much less environmental impact than procuring oil.
• Hemp fuel is biodegradable; so oil spills become fertilizer not eco-catastrophes.
• Hemp fuel does not contribute to sulfur dioxide air poisoning.
• Other noxious emissions like carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are radically slashed by using "biodiesel."
• Hemp fuel is nontoxic and only a mild skin irritant; anybody who's ever cleaned out an old carburetor with gasoline can confirm the same is not true for petrol.
• Growing hemp for fuel would be a tremendous boon for American farmers and the agricultural industry, as opposed to people like, say, the Bush family.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 24, 2008 12:47 PMDo some research and shut up.
Posted by: Guinness02 on January 24, 2008 01:24 PMFuel:
Planting 6% of the continental U.S. with biomass crops would satisfy all America's energy needs.
Hemp is Earth's number-one biomass resource; it is capable of producing 10 tons per acre in four months.
Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol, or gasoline at a cost comparable to petroleum, and hemp is much better for the environment.
Hemp can produce 10 times more methanol than corn.
Hemp fuel burns clean. Petroleum causes acid rain due to sulfur pollution.
The use of hemp fuel does not contribute to global warming.
Farms -- a natural resource.
Farmers must be allowed to grow an energy crop that produces at least 10 tons per acre in 90-120 days, and grows in all climactic zones in America. Hemp is drought resistant, making it an ideal crop in the dry western regions of the country.
Hemp is one of the best biomass producers on earth: up to 10 tons per acre in about four months. Hemp is pest resistant and can be grown in rotation with food crops or on marginal land,. where food production is not profitable. This energy crop can be harvested with equipment readily available. It can be "cubed" by modified hay cubing equipment, and the cubes are ready for conversion with no further treatment.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 24, 2008 01:50 PMThe number one finding from the performance audit report by State Auditor Brian Sonntag was that traffic congestion relief is not a top priority of the department of transportation so the audit's fundamental recommendation was: "Commit to congestion management and reduction as a primary goal." As Sonntag says in his accompanying letter to the report: "Citizens have identified congestion as a priority, and therefore, so must the Department (of Transportation) and the Legislature."
Sonntag's audit reported that we can reduce traffic congestion 15-20% by simply using our existing resources more effectively. Politicians' multi-billion-dollar plans only promise things will be 'less bad' 20-30 years from now. With ReduceCongestion.org, things will be better 30 days after voters approve it -- AND IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE TAXPAYERS' BURDEN AT ALL.
ReduceCongestion.org offers these three policies (all are based on recommendations from Sonntag's October 2007 audit report) with accountability and oversight provided by the State Auditor:
1) Opens carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours (peak defined as Mon-Fri 6-9 am, 3-6 pm);
2) Requires cities and counties to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets (with benchmarks and accountability provided by the State Auditor); and
3) Increases funding for emergency roadside assistance to clear out accidents faster (with benchmarks and accountability provided by the State Auditor).
To provide funding for these policies, ReduceCongestion.org DOES NOT RAISE TAXES, INCREASE FEES, OR IMPOSE TOLLS OR OTHER CHARGES; it instead dedicates a portion of existing vehicle-related revenue to a new dedicated account called the "Reduce Traffic Congestion Account" whose revenues and expenditures will be monitored and reported regularly to the public by the State Auditor:
1) ReduceCongestion.org dedicates 15% of revenues generated from the state sales and use tax on new and used vehicle purchases (approximately $128 million per year);
2) ReduceCongestion.org dedicates revenues generated from fines and penalties from red light traffic cameras;
3) Current law requires that a percentage of the cost of any transportation-related public works project go toward the purchase of art -- ReduceCongestion.org instead dedicates such funds to the new account;
4) ReduceCongestion.org DOES NOT create or impose tolls or charges on roads or highways, but if tolls or charges are imposed, then such revenues are dedicated to the "Reduce Traffic Congestion Account."
To read the complete text, go to:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i985.pdf
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org
"Transportation Bill" is that Prop 1 that was defeated? I'm thinking that you said spending, not proposed spending.
I see the State's transportation budget that is mostly capital projects for roads, ferries and rail, plus operating budgets for maintenance, ferry operations and rail operations.
King County has a large capital project budget that looks to be a lot of road, bridge, sidewalk, intersection work. Plus they have their operations budget that is for maintenance, and busses.
Where's the information you refer to about SPENDING over the last number of years that has 60-70% going to mass transit, leaving 30-40% to infrastructure for cars?
Posted by: BA on January 24, 2008 02:17 PMThe State DOT spends its budget on roads, ferries and rail - capital improvements and operations. I think the State also sends money to transit districts for transit - how much I'm not sure.
King County (for example) spends transportation dollars on the physical transportation infrastructure (mostly roads, bridges) and Metro (operations and purchasing vehicles). We know that Sound Transit in King County spends money on capital projects (HOV ramps, rail, transit ways, parking garages, etc) and operations (busses, trains, light rail). Individual cities within King County spend their transportation dollars on infrastructure and operations (primarily maintenance) - not much on transit.
It would seem that a true picture as to how we're spending our dollars is out there - but never really quoted - which is why I asked if you had a source for your claim of 60-70% or our spending being for transit.
Not sure about the claim that 1/3 the cost of projects are environmental studies - do we really think the that the new Narrows Bridge had $250m in spending on studies? Maybe so, that shouldn't be hard to check.
No doubt the process of building infrastructure could be streamlined and made more efficient - particularly if we cut out public involvement - though I kind of like voting once and a while.
North Dakota - I'm thinking this is very apples and oranges - I'll bet a mile of new freeway in Fargo is just as costly as a mile through Mt. Vernon (I was going to use a more central city but couldn't think of one as flat as Fargo).
Posted by: BA on January 24, 2008 03:42 PMOur initiative follows the recommendations of the performance audit -- what you're proposing goes beyond that. Your suggestion totally makes sense but we're trying to stay to the recommendations. also, this is how most states handle their carpool lanes (restricted during peak hours and open during non-peak hours).
Thanks.
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org
Posted by: Tim Eyman, ReduceCongestion.org co-sponsor on January 24, 2008 04:01 PMFewer environmental regulations in Fargo and the labor force is cheaper. Big reason my dad moved all of us out here in the 60s.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2008 04:05 PMI do recall Fargo to be about as flat sloping down to the Red River as the Skagit river valley is - just the hills are a lot further away in Fargo.
Posted by: BA on January 24, 2008 04:30 PMI just moved down to Shoreline so I can get to Seattle without even going on I-5.
You may be right, but if you are in Shoreline, I sure hope you don't have Maralyn Chase as a representative. If you do you might want to read the recent article by Pudge on this blog "Maralyn Chase's Greatest Hits, Volume 2008" about her latest escapades.
You'll might want to move back out of Shoreline!
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/481.2.pdf
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 24, 2008 06:31 PM
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/LMM.html
- Insignificant time savings;
- The empty lane syndrome;
- Insufficient enforcement;
- Lack of support systems; and
- Disproportionate disadvantages for SOVs
Lack of Support Systems: Main-line HOV lanes should be
accompanied by support systems that complement their operations and
reinforce the rideshare message. Examples of such systems include
park-and-ride lots, express bus service, HOV bypass lanes on
metered ramps, ridematching services, and preferential parking for
carpools in congested areas.
http://www.its.umn.edu/Education/K12Modules/RampMetering/article1.html
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 24, 2008 06:43 PMUnder our initiative, if a toll is imposed to pay for a project, it must go toward the project and nothing else. The Legislature is pushing for "flexibility" in tolls -- translated, this means they want to spend tolls on other things. Under our initiative, tolls could only be spent on the project.
So I-985 does exactly what you want.
But if they decide to impose tolls beyond the cost of the project, then I-985 says this money must go toward the "Reduce Traffic Congestion Account" and not to other things. What this effectively does is it stops politicians from pushing to earn 'profits' from tolls because I-985 guarantees the extra money will go into our initiative's dedicated account.
ReduceCongestion.org I-985 does exactly what you say you want and it stops politicians from doing what you don't want: diverting toll revenue to other things.
make sense?
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org
Posted by: Tim Eyman, ReduceCongestion.org co-sponsor on January 25, 2008 07:01 PMBEGIN DOUBLESPEAK
Your question concerning two-lane on ramps to the freeway system has beenforwarded to me for a response. My name is Chris Picard and I manage the state's 20 year highway plan for this region. First, I would like to thank you for taking the time to ask this question. My response will be short and most probably not be the answer you are looking for. From your question, I believe I can come to the conclusion that you are not a strong believer in ramp metering. Ramp metering is the process of spacing out single occupant vehicle (SOV) traffic as they enterthe freeway system through the use of a traffic signal. Very generally speaking, the more congested the freeway is at any give time, the longer the wait is for SOV traffic to access to freeway. This occurs while buses and car pools (High Occupancy Vehicle or HOV traffic) are given a "bypass lane"which allows them to move ahead of the SOV vehicles waiting for the greenlight. This break for HOV traffic is meant to encourage a mode shift from SOV to HOV. If we can get some people out of their SOV cars and into carpools, van pools, or buses, it will result in more space on the freeway for those who simply cannot make this mode shift for various reasons.This ramp metering system was put in-place for one primary reason; to keep our existing freeway system operating as efficiently and effectively aspossible. There comes a point in highway congestion when the freeway isoperating at less than optimal capacity. The freeway will simply breakdownunder the load of all the traffic wishing to use it resulting in hugebackups and very often associated accidents. Ramp metering was implementedto help keep this situation from occurring as much as possible. It also hasa safety benefit in that cars wishing to merge with mainline traffic arespaced out so that this maneuver can happen more easily. If we were to eliminate the ramp meters and add another freeway rampcreating two lane on-ramps you would get to the freeway a little bit quickerbut at that point your commute would break down. That is simply because there is not enough vehicular capacity on our freeways (and you can picknearly any freeway in this region) to accommodate the number of vehicles wishing to use them. We have developed plans to add capacity to many of ourfreeways but at this point in time there is no money which will allow us tomove forward into the construction phase. Chris R. Picard From: transc@wsdot.wa.gov [mailto:transc@wsdot.wa.gov]Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 2:03 PMTo: transc@wsdot.wa.govSubject: Tell Us Your ConcernsThe Transportation Commission welcomes and values your questions andcomments. To:Washington State Transportation Commission Subject:I have a question/comment and would like a response. Enter your message below:will you build a two lane interchange for king county freeways. im tired of the one lane metered interchanges. they are an agency extortionracket.waiting to form another agency or panel.off the public ferver createdby the back ups caused by the one lane interchange
Until then, NO MORE!
Posted by: GS on January 25, 2008 09:49 PMWith regards to tolling, does anyone know the real details of the HOT initiative on Hwy 167. From my understanding it will be open to HOV participants, as it is today, and also to SOV's who pay a toll. Supposedly there is a cover or something to negate the Good to Go pass for a vehicle that meets HOV requirements so they won't be debited. My concern though is how is this actually supposed to work and how are police to know if a SOV that covers over their Good to Go Pass to not pay at toll readers is actually skipping out of the toll. It seems to me to be a big oversight and potential way to cheat the system. I must be missing something here. They couldn't have made this collossal of a mistake in the system design.
Posted by: tc on January 26, 2008 10:10 AMRamp Metering was developed as a strategy to manage interstate traffic rather than invest in more lane miles.The original decision to implement ramp metering was made after it was concluded that they could be built at a fraction of the cost of building new lane miles.After the decision was made to invest in ramp metering initial pilot projects were completed,and the results were studied.Then recommendations on how to improve ramp metering were put forth in a marketing manual,This marketing manual made several suggestions on how to market ramp metering and how to make them work better.One of the suggestions was to build HOV support systems,which are intended to create a break for high occupancy vehicles (HOV) traffic to get around single occupant vehicles(SOV).The marketing manual describes this as reinforcing a ride-share message.HOV support systems are a critical part of reinforcing a ride-share message,without HOV support systems,SOV traffic would not be inclined to take HOV.HOV support systems are a by pass lane for HOV traffic,that goes around SOV traffic stopped by a metered stop light.Additional studies done by the University of Washington called Fuzzy logic ramp metering algorithm,gave ramp metering a scientific transportation Systems Management Center (TSMC)which made scientific claims that ramp metering offered merging traffic integration improvements.Fuzzy logic also makes additional claims that ramp metering reduces emissions,and saves fuel costs.When ramp metering is thoroughly investigated one can't help but come to the conclusion that ramp metering is a classic example of doublespeak.The most basics questions regarding the facts surrounding ramp metering and fuzzy logic,are not answered adequately. For instance, why does HOV merging traffic not require space to get up to speed.The lack of spacing for HOV traffic undermines the core reasoning behind ramp metering and fuzzy logic,and reduces it all to nothing more than a game of leap frog.Further review of fuzzy logic reveals that the area's where the study was done suffered from a lack of support from the original corridors.The section along I-90 suffers from the lack of support from local roads such a Newport Way ,East and West Lake Sammamish Pkwy.The same can be said for section of I-405 study area,which handles the majority of north south east side traffic with little or no support from any of the original corridors.The closing arguments against ramp metering and fuzzy logic are that the decision to implement ramp metering was made because it was a fraction of the cost of building new lane miles,and that if we build it they will come.After reviewing all the studies available it appears that Fuzzy logic is nothing more than a scientific cover up to add living wage jobs to a game of leap frog to get the public to drive fewer Lane miles.Further review of the 20 year plans for transportation planners show a desire to fill in the urban villages instead of building out.The obvious conclusion is that ramp metering is a tool to create a frustration that will skirt all traffic from the freeways by using doublespeak and social engineering,in order to achieve a fill in of the urban villages so road investments do not have to be made.Instead of building the needed transportation infrastructure we have settled for needless living wage positions that are cooking up a batch of transportation flubber.HOV should have to build their own exits instead of requisitioning one lane of a two lane off ramp in order to inject social engineering.High speed rail should be used to serve people in the neighborhoods they live in now instead of having living wage Fred MacMurrays cooking up a batch of transportation flubber for 50,000 a year to coerce them into HOV or an urban village.People should be encouraged to link up with High speed rail to drive fewer lane miles,instead of being subjected to social engineering.Instead of marketing doublespeak we need to market the truth.
http://www.its.umn.edu/Education/K12Modules/RampMetering/article1.html
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/LMM.html
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/481.2.pdf