Latest and Greaterest

There's one week to go until Thanksgiving, and Greater Washington has some exciting events to pass the time:

Evaluating the Significance of Modern Structures: The DCPL is sponsoring a panel discussion tonight about modern buildings. I'll be there. I'm hoping that when they say "evaluating the significance" they really mean "evaluating whether something is significant" instead of just "convincing people of the significance". Some modern structures are significant; others are not. Appropriately, the event takes place in one of my favorite modern buildings, the Pan American Health Organization at 525 23rd St, NW (at E Street). 6:30-8, $20.

Poplar Point Planning Powwow: Also tonight is a community meeting to discuss the Small Area Plan for Poplar Point. And Now, Anacostia strongly urges you to provide feedback for "the largest development in the city's history" (since it was first developed, of course). 6-9 at Birney Elementary School, 2501 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, SE.

Walk for Charlie's Place: Dupont Circle homeless services organization Charlie's Place desperately needs walkers for its Saturday walkathon. It's just 55 walkers short of qualifying for a big Fannie Mae grant. Marc Fisher writes today about the huge savings DC realized in emergency room visits from moving homeless people into their own housing. But that program's expansion met the sharp end of the Council's budget axe, making other homeless services all the more important. You can even walk for free and the Dupont Circle Citizens' Association will sponsor you, to get Charlie's Place to the 55 it needs.

One more Purple Line hearing: The last of the four is Saturday, at the Montgomery College Takoma Park/Silver Spring Campus, Falcon Hall, 7600 Takoma Avenue. Open house 12:30, hearing 1:00.

Rapidly learn about rapid buses: Get home rapidly after Thanksgiving and come to the Coalition for Smarter Growth's rapid bus forum on Monday, December 1. The event will feature WMATA General Manager John Catoe, Maryland State Highway Administrator Neil Pedersen, and WMATA Chairman Chris Zimmerman of Arlington. They'll talk about WMATA's Priority Bus plan and try to get Pedersen to commit to signal priority and dedicated lanes for express buses. 6-8 pm, RSVP required.

During the campaign, Transportation For America created this pledge, which they asked candidates to sign to show their support for a new direction in transportation funding:

I support Amtrak funding and the development of high-speed freight and passenger rail networks across the country. ... I will also re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country. ... And I will further promote transit by creating incentives for transit usage that are equal to the current incentives for driving.

All of these measures will have significant environmental and metropolitan planning advantages and help diversify our nation's transportation infrastructure. Everyone benefits if we can leave our cars, walk, bicycle and access other transportation alternatives. I agree that we can stop wasteful spending and save Americans money, and as president, I will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account.

Actually, I lied. Transportation For America didn't write this. Barack Obama did. (Well, his staff, presumably.) After T4A urged its supporters to sign a petition to John McCain and Barack Obama on the need for better transportation solutions, Obama sent them this thank-you letter containing the above passage.

I don't agree with everything Barack Obama says all the time. And sometimes I find myself frustrated by some of his campaign tactics, staffing decisions, or policy positions. But on transportation, so far he's never wavered. We really couldn't ask for anything better in a President — so far.

Now it's up to Obama's transportation transition team to get the right people in senior positions in the government, like the new Office of Urban Policy and of course USDOT. And it's up to the President to deliver on his promises. But seriously, this is pretty kick ass.

During the debate and vote over the Chevy Chase historic district, many district opponents warned that HPRB could legally ignore community wishes and designate the district despite opposition. Since HPRB is made up of preservationists, some wondered whether they would really respect community opinion. And Marc Fisher, never a moderate on historic preservation issues, wrote that "the preservation review board has the right to overrule residents' desires."

The vague process (and press coverage) triggered even more hysteria in Lanier Heights (the residential area north of Columbia Road and east of Adams Mill in Adams Morgan), where historic district supporters have begun a survey of properties with an eye toward a future historic district. Upon learning this, some neighbors worried that preservationists were trying to designate their neighborhood in secret. While largely unfounded (neighbors would have ample warning once proponents actually assembled an application), these concerns triggered a panicked discussion on the neighborhood email list, followed by a community forum on the subject.

After the initial Chevy Chase concerns surfaced, Councilmember Mary Cheh introduced a bill mandating a vote for any new district, but with a high bar. Under her proposal, if over 50% of property owners affirmatively objected to a new district, HPRB would not be able to designate it or consider it again for three years. In Chevy Chase, only 51% of property owners even voted, with 77% of those opposing the district, meaning only about 42% of property owners had objected.

While HPO assured residents that it would not move forward on a new district with that level of opposition, and Historic Chevy Chase quickly withdrew their application, Cheh's standard would still not have kicked in and HPO could still have exercised their discretion on this district. Nevertheless, to head off legislative action in advance of tomorrow's public hearing, HPO has started writing new regulations to clarify this process.

According to a rough outline HPRB will consider today, HPO will "make explicit the Board's expectation of broad community support for proposed historic districts," with the applicant required to demonstrate community support and document the public outreach they conducted. The new rules will clarify that "property owners may concur in or object to the listing of a proposed historic district" and require HPO to "tally" owner objections. Finally, HPO will "establish procedures to ... resolve majority owner objection to a proposed historic district, or a Board finding of insufficient support for the proposal absent majority objection."

This is a good start, and these regulations sound like they will have more nuance than the Cheh bill. If anything, this puts an even greater burden on new districts than the bill would.

Clearly, HPO is trying to alleviate residents' fears that HPRB will simply designate their neighborhoods without public participation. To succeed, they must ensure the regulations are very clear. If the "procedures to resolve insufficient support" keep the criteria vague and still leave the decision entirely up to HPRB, opponents can continue to argue that residents don't have a real voice.

Please enroll in transportation economics 101: UMD's Residence Hall Association passed a resolution calling on the university to "explore ways to create new parking spaces and to reduce the number of cars on the campus." As the first commenters points out, one way to start reducing the number of cars is not to create new parking spaces! An amendment to remove the parking space portion of the resolution narrowly failed. Tip: Carter.

Clearance on car dealers: Mayor Fenty closed 23 more car dealerships on Monday for legal violations. The Office of Planning is thinking about how we could productively reuse these spaces in the short term. How about some farmers' markets once the weather warms back up?

SF trying performance parking: SF's MTA gave the green light for that city's first performance parking pilot program, which will set market prices for meters and municipal garages in high-demand commercial areas. Tip: Ben Thielen.

Amtrak CEO resigns: I hadn't paid much attention to Amtrak CEO Alex Kummant or his recent resignation. But Orphan Road suggests a plausible rationale: In an August interview, Kummant seemed uninterested in new high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor or elsewhere. Orphan Road hypothesizes, "It may be that the Amtrak board wants to use this opportunity to think big, and Kummant wasn't down with that."

Plus: After an audit, MTA Maryland realized they're missing $475,000 (via Inside Charm City); The American Prospect ponders the possibilities for Obama's Office of Urban Policy and discusses the growing local online movement around metropolitan issues (tip: Dan E).

Within a year of Janette Sadik-Khan taking the reins at New York City's Department of Transportation, they got new plazas, "cycle track" buffered bike lanes, express bus lanes, Summer Streets, and more.

How about bringing some of these innovations to DC?

Do transportation consulting companies really provide unbiased analysis, or do they simply conclude whatever their paying client wants to hear?

We already know that "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz of New York is unafraid to tell NYC's teachers that they don't deserve special parking rights, but will twist ridership figures to please the Town of Chevy Chase and earn his $374,000 fee. Schwartz cobbled together the report they wanted, concluding that the Purple Line should run past other people's schools instead of their golf courses (and slower).

I smell some similar twisting in Gorove/Slade's report on where to put the garage entrance for the Utopia project at 14th and U. I've already written multiple times about this particular curb cut fight, where I come down (barely) on the side of the 14th Street entrance. But we may end up with the right decision for all the wrong reasons.

Some of these wrong reasons appear in the report. In the scoping process, DDOT asked Gorove/Slade to show why using the alley for parking is infeasible. It may be, but the report instead simply argues that the 14th Street entrance is not so bad. The biggest question in approving any curb cut is whether implementing it will harm pedestrians, but the report gives short shrift to this issue. After the table of contents, the word 'pedestrian' doesn't even appear until page 7. Instead of analyzing pedestrian safety, the report simply shows pictures of bulb-outs DDOT has already proposed for 14th and U, and then asserts that since those will improve pedestrian conditions, everything will be okay.

The bulk of the report focuses on vehicular Level of Service. It uses terms like "[this] intersection would fail" to describe an intersection with high traffic volume, reinforcing the outdated traffic engineer framing that success means moving large numbers of vehicles through an area. All of this LOS analysis (which takes up most of the space in the report) simply verifies that the front garage entrance won't worsen vehicle traffic. It's not nececssarily better; it's simply no worse. The consulting team spent a lot of time counting the numbers of vehicles going through each intersection, but published no comparable statistics for pedestrians.

The interior alleys at the site are very wide (30 feet), with plenty of room for cars or even to add sidewalks. The alleys connecting to U and T Streets, however, are only 10 feet (5 and 6 above). Two-way traffic on both of these alleys force cars and trucks to maneuver gingerly. Making both of these alleys one-way, with all traffic entering on U and exiting on T, could address this problem. The Gorove/Slade report analyzes this option, but dismisses it because residents won't like it:

Capacity analysis results indicate that the alley would operate efficiently with the one-way southbound restrictions. However, ... the southbound restriction would increase truck traffic along T Street between the alleyway and 14th Street, which is now striped with a bike lane. These impacts would be objectionable to the adjacent community, and the prospective residential and retail users of the proposed development.

The report glosses over mention of impacts, objectionable or otherwise, to the many people who will take Metro to this area, or who live nearby on other streets besides T, and will walk around here. They will feel the impact of a front garage entrance. It also dismisses the impact on the bicycle commuters who ride down 14th to work every day. They weren't counted, and their objections unheard. Instead, the authors simply dismiss an alternative which would "be objectionable to the adjacent community".

Gorove/Slade's report does make some valid points. They also, and more validly, criticize the one-way option for its effect on the Reeves Center, whose garage entrance faces U Street across from the alley. According to the report, having traffic turn into the alley from U and also into and out of Reeves at the same spot could create more vehicular problems.

The report also makes the very good point that the U Street sidewalk is much narrower than the one at 14th. Having vehicles exit there could be much more dangerous than on 14th. Even the one-way option creates more pedestrian conflicts at this tight spot.

Unfortunately, I simply don't find this report persuasive. It makes a few good points amid a plethora of lousy ones. To conclude, as this report does, that a 14th Street entrance is "the better option", it's important to consider all the impacts. Instead, Gorove/Slade simply considered some (like traffic and neighbor complaints) while ignoring others (like the needs of pedestrians on 14th).

Plus, "better" isn't the standard for a curb cut; the development must be impractical without one. And by impractical, that means for pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders and cars, not just for cars. It also doesn't mean politically impractical. I do believe this development may indeed meet this burden. But this report fails to show that, and does a disservice to everyone trying to rationally decide this issue. On persuasiveness Level of Service, it gets an F.

by Cavan

I testified at the Bethesda/Chevy Chase Purple Line hearing last night. Most speakers rehashed the same arguments made back and forth in western Montgomery County over the past few years. The "Save the Trail" crowd repeated their parochial concerns.

But these opponents were definitely the minority. 60-80% of the people who spoke before me (I was nunmber 30) supported the light rail Purple Line. A few (including me) specifically spoke up for the High Investment Light Rail option. It was an excellent hearing, especially for light rail Purple Line proponents.

A wide cross section of people spoke for the project: transit advocates, citizens at large, citizens of the Town of Chevy Chase who were upset about their town government's stancec, senior citizens who remembered streetcars and lamented them ever disappearing, various local Chambers of Commerce, a representative from the Montgomery County League of Women Voters, a representative from the Town of North Chevy Chase, and others.

The Town of North Chevy Chase opposes the Jones Bridge Road bus alignment (Low Investment BRT) because it would literally increase traffic in their front yards. It would mean buses every two minutes right in front of North Chevy Chase Elementary School. The town's representative pointed out that light rail on the old CSX freight railroad tracks has been part of the county's Master Plan for 20 years. The Jones Bridge Road busway only came up earlier this year when the Town of Chevy Chase commissioned Sam Schwartz to do a study, completely funded by the town, that (surprise!) supported the town's position.

I was the only speaker I saw who was under 30. Another guy, who appeared to be in his thirties, said he favored the LRT because he's committed to a green, transit oriented lifestyle and was sick of standing for 24 minutes on a J2/J3 bus from his home in downtown Bethesda to get to Silver Spring. I commend him for sticking to his convictions, and speaking out about it when it counts.

I tried to use my three minutes to say something that none of the other 29 speakers before me had already said. I focused on the long, long term costs of the High Investment LRT option. The New York City Subway has been running for approximately one century. Our Metro has been running for a little over 30 years. The cost-effectiveness estimates in the Maryland MTA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement centered around 2030, because of the rules for federal funding.

The longer a time frame we use to amortize the initial construction costs, the smaller the High Investment LRT's capital costs become compared to the benefits of the higher investment. The lower investment options cost less up front, but also deliver disproportionately fewer benefits over the life of the transit line. Light rail is the most expensive, but also the best value. Just like our existing Metro, you get what you pay for.

(And all options are deemed to be cost-effective enough for federal funding, according to FTA metrics.)

Since I hail from a different generation than most other speakers, I emphasized that this project is about the future of our region, not just about money. I pointed out that most young professionals in the Washington region prefer to live in a vibrant walkable environment. Even those who want to have yards and single family houses don't put the big yard on the same pedestal as our parents do. Most want a place where there is some form of community, whether a small town, walkable suburban town, or neighborhood in a major city. Such places need infrastructure to support them. Electrified rail is the highest performance transportation infrastructure in a walkable environment. Our region needs more as we continue to add jobs, residents, wealth, and vibrancy.

I had fun, and feel like I made a positive difference for my community and my region.

Will they just cancel MARC entirely?: Maryland's transportation revenue is down another $2.5 billion beyond the $1 billion cuts already made, reports the Post. That's very bad news for the Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway. But of course, the $2.4 billion ICC is immune thanks to its privileged financing agreement. MARC riders spoke out against the previous round of cuts.

It's even worse in NYC: New York's MTA may have to eliminate the W train entirely, along with other drastic service cuts, if the New York State legislature doesn't provide more money for the city's transit system. Via Opinionnation.

The good news: The New York Times thinks blogs are news media, though we're still waiting on WMATA (tip: Joel); MetroCard records exonerated a murder suspect (tip: Froggie); lawmakers and transit agencies may have a solution to prevent banks from calling in their tax shelters and costing transit agencies millions.

How about congestion pricing? Matt Yglesias rides in New York traffic and wonders why people framed the proposal as "anti-driving" when it would actually speed up drivers.

How about a growth boundary? The Prince George's Council tabled a bill to set up a "Transfer of Development Rights" program where developers in the denser part of the county would buy development rights from the farmland in the rural segment. Environmentalists and farmers argued the county needs the program to preserve farmland; developers said the mandatory nature of the program would add costs to their developments.

Big surprise: shock commentators take people out of context: WTOP commentator Chris Core, predictably, responded to criticism of his anti-bike screed by cherry-picking the harshest of his critics and ignoring the real point entirely.

by Cavan

Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett has proposed budget cuts to RideOn that would reduce service. Meanwhile, Leggett doesn't plan to cut any road projects. Every little road "upgrade" (and by "upgrade" I mean widening, making cars go faster, and causing more pedestrian injuries) in the county is still going forward as planned.

For now, most of the cuts would reduce mid-day service on commuter-oriented routes. There are also some cuts to weekend routes that go between low-density, low ridership places. These proposed cuts will have a similar effect as long headways of the Metro on weekends. Because of the long headways, it takes up to 30 minutes longer to get somewhere on the Metro than it would on a weekday, when the system runs on approximately 5 minute headways midday and 2 minute headways during rush hour. The extra time discourages many car-owning, transit-loving people from using transit for discretionary weekend trips when they (theoretically) don't have to worry about traffic jams. While I don't think the effect will be as dramatic if RideOn scales back service, I am concerned about starting a negative self-perpetuating downward spiral that will make it even easier to cut RideOn in the future.

This leads to the root of the problem: the source of transportation funding. We have this gasoline tax system that punishes citizens who behave responsibly and consume less fossil fuel. It's a recipe for disaster. We're putting ourselves on a path that will just deepen the current ridiculous situation where transit agencies are forced to cut back service as more and more people are using transit.

Of course, the most ridiculous aspect to this entire story is the fact that no one even bothered to think that the money from the road widenings could ever be used for something that will move people around through a means other than private automobiles. It is frustrating to see our local government attempt to solve a 2008 problem with a 1958 solution.

Mr. Leggett's office can be reached at ocemail@montgomerycountymd.gov.

One big shortcoming of the LEED green building code is its focus almost entirely on the building rather than the location. A building could get high marks in LEED with a green roof, cutting-edge stormwater management, effective heat insulation, electricity-saving equipment, and more, but be located in the middle of a former forest where the average employee drives 30 miles to work. Is that really saving the environment?

Enter LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND), a new type of LEED for new large-scale developments. LEED just opened up their draft for public comment. It's fascinating to read. They have to quantify every element, like whether a site has good linkage to the surrounding neighborhood, or too many dead-end streets within.

The draft also gives points for the bicycle network, buildings fronting onto the street, avoiding blank walls, mixed-income housing, unbundling parking, car sharing, historic preservation, and of course green building practices in the structures themselves.

LEED-ND isn't replacing the regular building LEED, but it's bringing good urban design practices into the LEED system. Next, LEED should adapt some of the concepts of LEED-ND into their code for individual buildings, giving more credit to developers who locate their office buildings near transit.