Posts by David Alpert

Madam Chairman and members of the Council,

Appointing DDOT Director Terry Bellamy to the WMATA Board of Directors represents a very significant opportunity. There are many such opportunities, such as to work with you to push WMATA to correct its stifling and longstanding stance of secrecy toward riders and simply to make sure needed repairs are on track, but specifically having the DDOT director on the board is a chance to bring DDOT and WMATA closer and foster greater coordination between these agencies.

Each controls an enormous share of the transpor­tation infrastructure that our residents depend on every day, yet the two agencies often do not work in harmony as much as needed to move transportation forward.

By far the greatest opportunity to improve transportation for District residents lies in our bus service. DC spends over $190 million per year in public operating dollars on our bus service. That is about 3½ times the amount we spend on Metrorail, and is more than double DDOT's operating budget.

Bus delays from traffic swell this cost and cause pain to our residents. For example, I recently received this email from a reader who will soon be moving to the Wisconsin Avenue area:

My wife took a bus going from Federal Triangle over to Wisconsin Ave for an appointment but also near our future new home. She became stuck in traffic on I St and is now cursing the bus. What is the outlook for the H & I bus lanes?

With the volume of buses that use that route, it really should be a priority. Anything that can be done to help speed up the process? My wife was spoiled by few stop Metrorail commutes and the bus is a big adjustment for her.

This type of question is far from unusual. Residents rich and poor, black and white, in outer low-density areas and inner high-density ones all struggle with bus delay if they aren't fortunate enough to have both home and work close to a Metrorail station.

There is an enormous amount DC could be doing to reduce the costs of bus travel while improving speed and reliability for our bus riders:

• Allow appropriate turning movements for buses to help them get through congestion
  
• Create queue hopper lanes that help buses bypass traffic waiting at signals
  
• Enforce illegal parking that prevents buses from making turns or bus stops
  
• Locate bus stops in ways that allow buses and customers to use them more efficiently
  
• Create bus lanes where practical
  
• Implement traffic signal priority
  
• Improve the accessibility of bus stops so that fewer riders are dependent upon, or beholden to, costly and unreliable MetroAccess service
  
• Remove on-street parking where the benefits outweigh the costs.

There are dozens of recommendations in WMATA line studies and service evaluations that have not yet been implemented. Sometimes, these just do not come up in internal DDOT discussions. At other times, WMATA and DDOT's transit staff point to the recommendations, but the engineers and traffic operations folks balk at implementing the studies.

Fortunately, there is a simple solution. These divisions work for Director Bellamy. He can bring these issues from WMATA and ensure that DDOT prioritizes implementing them.

Here are a few examples:

• WMATA was implementing bus priority on the 70s lines at the same time DDOT was planning the 7th Street streetscape. However, there was no coordination on signal technology needs.
  
• The 90s line study proposed bus enhancements along U street, but DDOT paid no attention to these recommendations while they simultaneously designed streetscape enhancements on U Street. Meanwhile, efficiency recommendations for 8th Street go almost completely unnoticed.
  
• A study about the potential for bus lanes on H and I Streets downtown was supposed to be complete in March, but still remains months from completion, with no clear path to implementation thereafter. Short segments H and I are where many of DC's most heavily used bus lines bogged down in commuter traffic wasting hours and ruining bus reliability.

WMATA isn't the only source of bus operating efficiency needs. The DC Circulator routes, for which DC bears 100% of the operating subsidy, is an ideal place for DDOT to prioritize operational enhancements.

I have spoken over several years with officials at both WMATA and DDOT. I repeatedly hear from WMATA that they are not finding the support at DDOT to implement their recommendations, and hear from folks at DDOT that they don't feel WMATA is ready to support DDOT or understands the constraints DDOT must labor under.

I am sure both groups of people are right. It is often difficult for two agencies to coordinate closely, especially when the agencies answer to different masters. I am sure many people at DDOT find it simply less work to tackle projects that don't require calling the Jackson Graham building, and those at WMATA have less trouble simply solving problems they can handle without going to New Jersey Avenue.

But this is necessary. Bus service is our best chance to save money and improve mobility for the residents of the District. We're not going to build any new Metrorail lines in the near future, and while streetcars will bring meaningful economic development, they will not be a speedy ride across town. But our bus service can and should be a desirable mode of travel for all.

There is no big megaproject to undertake that will fundamentally revamp bus service. Improving this mode of travel requires making many small and medium-sized fixes over many years that build up in the aggregate. The same applied to bicycle lanes, and tireless staff worked for years to gradually build up more and more lanes. DDOT needs to start now to put in one bus improvement at a time, then another, and another.

Right now, that is not yet happening, which costs DC millions of dollars and makes bus riders suffer, often at the expense of commuters from Maryland and Virginia who we often end up prioritizing despite clear policies at DDOT, and statements from this council, to the contrary.

The time is now. Montgomery County yesterday released their proposal for building 160 miles of a new bus Rapid Transit System, mostly on dedicated lanes. The Council, with your support Madam Chairman, just created a special fund for bus enhancements beginning in FY13, which could raise several million dollars per year if DDOT moves swiftly to implement performance parking in the downtown area.

With Director Bellamy on the WMATA Board, I am hopeful that this state of affairs can change. We will have a single person who can instruct his staff in DDOT meetings to advance bus improvements, and then head over to WMATA and push the staff there to uphold their end of whatever is necessary.

I hope you will ask Director Bellamy questions such as these:

• Do you agree that bus efficiency must get much higher priority from the department?
  
• Will your participation at WMATA represent a turning point to get long-awaited, significant progress going on these bus projects?

If the answers to both are yes, then Director Bellamy's presence on the WMATA Board will not just mean yet another voice contributing to already crowded debates, but a very positive step toward getting these two agencies working together to exploit our greatest untapped mobility opportunities.

Here is the full spreadsheet of data (XLS). We mainly lose points on average park size, where our median of 0.7 acres is the smallest among the cities due to the many small federal circles, squares and triangles. 96% of residents live within ½ mile of at least one park, putting DC near the top on that metric, but for many that park is just a small federal square or triangle without many amenities.

DC also ranks low in playgrounds, with only 1.68 per 10,000 residents, which comes out to about 100 playgrounds. Downtown residents have been asking for a playground, and other neighborhoods could benefit from them as well.

Meanwhile, we score near the top on the other metrics. 19.1% of DC's land area is parkland, second only to San Diego and New York. This ranking unfortunately includes things like parkways and, in DC, the parking lots around RFK stadium. But that still doesn't diminish our robust amount of actual parkland, most in the large federal spaces like the Mall, Rock Creek, the Arboretum, the Anacostia and Potomac waterfronts, the Fort Circle, and more.

DC spends and the federal government spend $303.45 per capita on parks, the most of any city thanks to the Mall's role as a major national tourist destination.

In the press release, Peter Harnik, director of The Trust for Public Land's Center for City Park Excellence, notes that residents in Wards 1 and 5 especially need better park access, and there are not enough sports playing fields.

Richard Hoye writes,

I pointed out that the 100 bike racks the Bethesda Urban Partnership approved for the CBD streetscape and funded by Honest Tea violated basic design standards for bike racks. [Seth Goldman of Honest Tea] didn't even know there was a codified body of knowledge on bike tack design and, it appears, neither did BUP.

I asked Tom Robertson, retired bike planner for the County Planning agency, who now works for Transportation Solutions in BUP's offices about this collaboration. Even he was not consulted on the project.

This style of bike rack was very common decades ago, and you still see them in some places, often college campuses. But they don't work well for locking. They're not designed to get the bike's frame close enough to the rack to allow locking the frame, wheel and rack all together.

On many racks like this, people instead lift the bicycle up and place it so that the wheel goes over the rack and the rack's top bar sits behind the wheel. This rack seems to make even that difficult, as the top bar is much thicker and square.

Section 7.2.9 of the draft new zoning rules for Montgomery County specifies bike rack standards:

Where required bicycle parking is provided via racks, the racks must meet the following design and dimension standards:

• The bicycle frame and one wheel can be locked to the rack with a high security lock;
  
• A bicycle can be securely held with its frame supported in at least two places;
  
• Racks must be offset a minimum of 30 inches on center;
  
• The rack must be durable and securely anchored; and
  
• The locking surface of the rack should be thin enough to allow standard u-locks to be used, but thick enough so the rack cannot be cut with bolt cutters.

Montgomery County DOT has also created a fact sheet detailing how to best design and install bike racks. Many cities have very thorough manuals, like Toronto's.

It's not that unusual for well-meaning people to install bike racks entirely wrong. Someone installed 9 "inverted U" racks at HD Cooke Elementary in Adams Morgan, but put them too close together and too close to a wall to be usable. DCPS subsequently relocated the racks.

Hopefully Honest Tea and the Bethesda Urban Partnership can go back to the company that sold them these noncompliant racks and switch them for something better.

Montgomery County is growing, and residents need to be able to travel around without worsening traffic. But there isn't room to keep widening arterial roads, and that's not a sustainable approach in any event.

Outside the dense Silver Spring-Bethesda area and along the existing Red Line corridors, there isn't the density or the density isn't linear enough to make rail worthwhile. Maryland needs to build the Purple Line, but the future of transportation elsewhere likely lies in high-quality bus transit.

What is a "world class" system?

The report calls for this to be a "world class" system. They've set out a clear principle in the report that the service must run in dedicated lanes, and even call it "the most important principle":

To the maximum extent possible, having physically separated, dedicated RTV lanes THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, so the system's RTVs would not become commingled into mixed general traffic.

The question will be, where does the space for these lanes come from? The report also says, "This preference for, and weight given to, RTV use within the maximum potentially available right-of-way should not be interpreted as being hostile to the on-going requirement for effective automobile use ... The Task Force does not advocate for the elimination of a large percentage of current automobile lane use."

But what about a small percentage? Will Montgomery dedicate some car lanes for buses even in some places? That remains to be seen, and could be a critical factor in whether the countywide RTV system succeeds. The Montgomery DOT has been reluctant to change even a single car lane thus far.

The report also calls for "unique branding" to further emphasize that this system is "world class" and not just a bus, and sets out a number of other distinguishing factors as absolute "must haves":

• RTVs must be sleek and stylish.
• RTVs must have multiple wide doors on both sides of the RTVs.
• RTVs equipped with WiFi capabilities and electronic real-time messaging.
• Stations must be of a consistent and distinctive style.
• Stations must be safe, wide, and weather-protected.
• Stations must have level platform boarding with handicap accessibility.
• Stations must be equipped with real time data and with user-friendly maps.
• Stations must provide off-vehicle fare collection.
• Peak-peak period frequency of 3-5 minute headways.
• Off-peak period frequency of 5-7 minute headways
• Lanes with intersection improvements and coordination with other modes of transportation.
• Multi-modal integration (pedestrians, bicycles, Zipcars®, taxi service, Ride-On and Metrobus, shuttle buses and neighborhood circulators).

Other factors, like stations set slightly away from the road, late-night service, and photo enforcement are also recommended but less critical.

Do we call it a bus? Does it matter?

These elements come directly from ITDP's report on BRT where they try to define a LEED-like rating system to classify BRT systems as "gold," "silver," etc. That's because the term "BRT" has often gotten watered down in jurisdictions that skimped on one or more elements in what Dan Malouff calls "BRT creep."

It's gotten so bad that this report actually disavows the terms "BRT" and "bus" as well. "We are not building a bus system, we're building a transformational transit system," said task force member David Hauck at today's press event. The report states,

These systems are frequently referred to as bus rapid transit ("BRT") systems. However, the Task Force has deliberately elected to refer to it as an RTV [Rapid Transit Vehicle] system because the nature, appearance and performance of the system will be qualitatively different from what is typical of BRT systems in the United States or abroad, which do not offer transformative qualities to be considered transportation solutions of choice.

This is a little ironic because the term "BRT" originally was supposed to distinguish these high-quality systems, similar to light rail only without the tracks, from regular bus service. Whatever they call it, Montgomery County will have to make a strong commitment to avoid its own BRT creep, or RTV creep.

BRT system could set standard for other cities

If the county can build it, the system could be both transformative and groundbreaking. No US metropolitan area has such a large system; others are generally a small number of lines in smaller cities. If it succeeds, other metropolitan areas that mix lower and higher densities might be able to start meaningfully expanding transit.

Montgomery is also a wealthy enough county to be able to afford to build the system and create a model for others. The report acknowledges that little federal money is possible, given both cuts in support to transit, the failure to raise the gas tax, and higher priorities for state money like the Purple and Baltimore Red Lines and Corridor Cities Transitway.

The report suggests a fairly modest increase in property tax, focused around areas near the lines. Supporters have built a strong coalition with businesses, neighborhood activists, and transit advocates.

They all agree that, coupled with the light rail Purple Line, this could be Montgomery County's future. There will be many challenges and disagreements to make it a reality, but there's really no other option.

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

In one of DC's most controversial preservation cases, the HPRB rejected the application, since the church had been designated as historic. The owners appealed, and Mayor Fenty asked planning director Harriet Tregoning to personally sit as the Mayor's Agent, which hears such appeals. Using the broader discretion available to the Mayor's Agent, she granted the raze, but only once the owners present a new design that gets past historic and other review.

Separately, the church and developer also reached a settlement with the DC Preservation League where they gave $450,000 for DCPL's operations preservation programs involving religious properties in exchange for DCPL ending their fight against the project, the staff report notes; other groups such as the Committee of 100 continued to oppose razing the structure.

Earlier this year, the developers working with the church proposed an 11-story building with ground floor retail, offices above, and a church space on the first 3 floors at one end. Since the buildings along 16th have cornices at 90 feet above the street, they designed a building with its own cornice line slightly below that height. Behind and set back, a glassier structure would rise to the higher point.

This building would still not be as tall as the adjacent one to the west on I Street, which falls into a different zone and isn't part of the historic district.

At a community meeting with residents of the Dupont and Golden Triangle area a few months ago, people were generally enthusiastic about the proposal. Architect and former HPO staffer Michael Beidler suggested some ways to set the upper portion back slightly more to create more separation.

Last month, however, the designers presented a different and significantly smaller proposal. Staff of the Historic Preservation Office (HPO), and some of the groups that opposed the original raze, opposed having a building taller than the 90 feet prevailing along the street. In response, the architects shrank the top portion to a single extra floor, set significantly back and only minimally visible from anywhere outside.

In their staff report, HPO rejects even that proposal. The report argues that on 16th Street, it is not historically appropriate to allow any buildings over the prevailing 90 foot size. A few buildings have penthouses, but not ones with space for people to use, and the report seeks to draw a firm line there; if this building can even have a single floor of occupiable penthouse, then the St. Regis hotel will want a rooftop restaurant, it says, and several other buildings will likely follow suit.

The property owner's argument is also more difficult in that they're looking to exceed zoning, though in legally permissible ways. In the typical preservation density dispute, staff want to restrict a building far more than the zoning permits in that area. Here, the owners want to rezone the property from SP-2 to C-3-C as well, which would give greater flexibility, and also to seek a Planned Unit Development, where the Zoning Commission reviews the project in exchange for even more flexibility.

Still, if successful, HPO's action has consequences for the city far beyond the look of the street. To take away the top 2 floors whe moving from the original proposal to what the owners call the "compromise" proposal, they reduced the interior space from about 14,000 to 10,000 square feet, they said during a presentation. At a typical rule of thumb of 250 square feet per office, that would cut 152 potential jobs from downtown DC. HPO's recommended limits would squeeze that further.

Jobs are the centerpiece of Mayor Gray's agenda, and one prerequisite for jobs is space. Already, many companies DC would love to attract, like technology companies, have trouble finding affordable office space compared to the suburbs or other cities.

Downtown, in particular, is the best place for jobs because it already has the transportation infrastructure to move more people in and out than in any other part of the region. It has the restaurants and the office supply stores and more. Plus, residents of many neighborhoods don't want too many office buildings coming into their areas; Dupont residents fought for decades to prevent the neighborhood from completely changing into an office-only extension of the Golden Triangle, for instance. Jobs, and space for jobs, downtown reduces the pressure elsewhere.

To me, the original concept doesn't look out of place in downtown. The grand avenue leading to the White House would be just as grand, if not grander, if buildings flanking it had slightly taller sections behind the main cornice lines that more closely matched the buildings right off 16th.

The report makes a good point that it would be better to set limits for the entire street, rather than piecemeal. However, this debate should more properly be part of a zoning discussion. If piecemeal rezoning a block of an SP-2 district to C-3-C is inappropriate, then it should be inappropriate in an SP-2 zone not subject to historic review. The Zoning Commission has the power to decide whether this should be a C-3-C PUD or just a standard SP-2; they should properly make that decision, not HPRB.

If this were already C-3-C, or if the Zoning Commission decides to rezone it, then a building of this size isn't inappropriate. The report makes repeated reference to provisions in the Comprehensive Plan about preserving the "historic, majestic, and beautiful" avenues, but an avenue can still be all of these things with buildings scaled to downtown.

The developers have some legitimate gripes about this process. They were originally scheduled for an HPRB meeting on May 3, but HPO did not issue its staff report by the Friday before the meeting, as usual. That forced them to postpone the project since there would not be enough time to respond to the staff report, said Sylianos Christofides, a principal at ICG, the project's developer.

In the meantime, the Dupont Conservancy, which initially endorsed the "compromise" approach, reversed its position between the two meetings. They say that ICG changed the project, warranting re-review, but Christofides insists they made no changes. Disclosure: I am a member of the Conservancy and was present at the meeting where the project first came up, but not at the second one.

This process also misses opportunities to create a more appealing building. When applying for the raze, the developers insisted that they would replace it with a top-quality building; I wrote that "HPRB now has a chance to shape some excellent architecture at this site."

The church entrance will have an interesting faceted glass arrangement (which hopefully would not be too hard to clean), but the rest of the building, while perfectly reasonable for an office building (and far better than some of the concrete boxes nearby), isn't especially interesting either. Instead of pushing for more significant architecture on the rest of the project, HPO has focused on just asking for a smaller building.

A grand avenue might have been better served by a building which stands out for its detailing and architectural quality instead of just having to get smaller so as to fade away and not impinge upon the consciousness. In past eras, the grand avenue leading to the White House was a place for notable and visible buildings, not invisible ones. Sadly, our preservation process has more recently evolved into one that tries to make each building as close to nonexistent as possible rather than truly great.

Update: Rebecca Miller of DCPL emailed in with additional information about what the $450,000 payment will fund:

The fund is to be used towards educational and outreach programs related to religious properties and mid-century modernism. The fund will also have a grant component to which congregations will be able to apply to the fund for bricks and mortar money or other projects such as research etc.

Miller was concerned that when I wrote "DCPL's operations" it sounded like that was to fund staff or office space and so forth. That was not my intention and I have updated the post.

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

Bottigheimer and former real estate head Steven Goldin advanced many significant projects for transit-oriented development on WMATA property, including at U Street and an agreement with GSA to develop around many suburban Metro stations, especially in Prince George's.

While there have been many frustrating developments from the operations side, the work we've seen from planning has been almost universally terrific. Of course, many top-notch planners remain in the group, so we can expect much good work yet to come.

In a memo, CEO Richard Sarles announced the change. Also, Chief of Staff Shiva Pant is retiring, and current customer service head Barbara Richardson will take over. She will oversee a number of functions at WMATA including planning, while parking and real estate development will be under CFO Carol Kissal. Lyn Bowersox, head of PR, will take over Richardson's job as Assistant General Manager for Customer Service, Communications and Marketing.

Bottigheimer will continue to advise WMATA on the transit plan and real estate issues through the fall as well.

Jeremy Faust, who runs the DC Council's Committee on the Environment, Public Works and Transportation for Councilmember Mary Cheh, is leaving to move to Cincinnati. Jeremy became an expert on transportation policy very quickly once his boss took over the committee, and before that did great work on streamlining the government when running the Committee on Government Operations and the Environment.

Fortunately, Cheh recently also hired Will Handsfield, who as a Capital City Fellow helped roll out Capital Bikeshare, among many other things. Cheh will continue to get very good advice on transportation policy.

Finally, Aaron Overman is leaving DDOT's transit group and will start working for Cambridge Systematics, where he will manage planning projects in the Washington region and around the United States. Overman helped push for better bus service and for a successful streetcar program at DDOT, and sadly losing him will force DDOT to find another person of high caliber to help keep its transit operations moving forward smoothly.

VDOT showed 4 "packages" of changes at 2 public meetings, along with stats for how each would likely affect travel times, traffic volumes, and more.

Package 1, which would make the existing lanes of I-66 into HOT lanes, free for vehicles with 3 or more people and tolled for 1 and 2, brings almost as much benefit as Package 2, which would add a 3rd lane on top of that. But package 1 costs about $350-650 million less.

Allen Muchnick of the Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation was one of the stakeholders in Tuesday's meeting, and got to see the draft final report. It lists the following metrics for packages 1 and 2, plus another option called a "sensitivity test," which tried only applying tolls during the peak period where I-66 is HOV-only today.

Here are the key metrics. The "Pkg 1 + ST" column reflects this new option from the sensitivity test.

Metric	Pkg 1	Pkg 1 + ST	Pkg 2
Daily Person Miles Traveled	+40,490 (0.8%)	+318,388 (5.4%)	+267,509 (4.6%)
Person Throughput Measure	+5,632 (1.2%)	+27,669 (6.1%)	+24,098 (5.3%)
Peak Period Congested VMT	+10,726 (2.8%)	+11,230 (2.9%)	-65,164 (-16.9%)
Transit Ridership	+1,423 (1.1%)	+2,568 (1.9%)	+2,124 (1.6%)
Added Capital Cost	$33M	$33M	$345-695M
Added Operating Cost	$23M	$23M	$25M

This new option, tolling at peak times, appears to move more people by both car and transit than the widening, yet saves hundreds of millions of dollars. Even without this option, it's likely that widening the road at such cost, and with all the disruption it will cause, is not worth gaining only a few percentage points of extra movement.

The metric of "peak period congested VMT" measures the wrong thing. This is the amount of vehicle miles traveled that happen in an uncongested road. But congetion, per se, is not the problem; a short drive in traffic is better than a long drive without it. The goal is to move people, or more accurately, get people where they need to be.

There were plenty of flaws with this study from the start. This assumes, as the "baseline," that Virginia has implemented every change in the regional Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP). That includes adding the 3 "spot improvements," which would already widen I-66 in several places; and changing I-66 to HOV-3 and assuming that nobody cheats the HOV restrictions.

The CLRP also includes some projects which will help in the I-66 corridor but have no funding today, like lengthening all Metro trains to 8 cars and adding new bus service in the area. Hopefully these will happen, but there's no guarantee.

A better study would have used today as the baseline, and looked at the CLRP changes like the "spot improvements" as some of the options. After all, if another change helps more, it's far from too late to build that instead. We would also then be able to better see the effects of this phantom bus service, though I'm told the full report does provide more detail on the effects of these proposals.

BeyondDC reminded me yesterday about a flowchart I made back in 2009. I've updated it slightly:

Is the urge to widen I-66 coming from engineers who can't shake the paving habit, or political pressure from above? If a transportation agency is unwilling to actually recommend anything other than widening, regardless of what a study shows, then that study really is the sham as people accused, and I feared, at the time, and VDOT might as well change its name to Virginia Department Of Paving Your Community.