Posts by Eric Hallstrom

With few exceptions, the survey's choices pit effective wayfinding against more colorful, albeit sometimes less useful, station names. For most stations, it presents a fairly descriptive choice, such as "27th and Crystal" and a more creative option like "Potomac Yard Gateway." The survey also asks whether to name the key transfer station at the Crystal City Metro station "Metro Gateway" or "Crystal City Metro."

As for Alexandria's portion, the City received an $8.5 million design/build grant for the CCPY Transitway. It is anticipated that a design/build firm will be selected and under contract later this month.

The project will begin this fall with construction to be completed in Winter 2013. It is anticipated that a the bulk of Alexandria's portion will run along a dedicated center lane on Highway 1.

The survey is short and simple. If you think you might be likely to use the CCPY Transitway, you should make sure your voice is heard. Please share your preferences (or any suggestions for alternatives) in the comments.

The Region Forward report identifies goals in several categories with specific targets relating to accessibility, sustainability, prosperity, and livability. The goals range from minimizing economic disparities and achieving balanced growth throughout the region to maximizing connectivity and walkability.

The report's land use goal sums up the overarching theme very succinctly: "We seek transit-oriented and mixed-use communities emerging in Regional Activity Centers that will capture new employment and household growth."

The purpose of the RFC is to oversee the implementation steps recommended in the Region Forward report, and to advise the COG Board on future regional planning activities. The RFC consists of 80 members representing area jurisdictions, planning committees, and advocacy groups. Prince George's County Council Vice Chair Eric Olson serves as the RFC chair, and Arlington County Board Member Mary Hynes and District of Columbia Planning Director Harriet Tregoning serve as vice chairs.

The author discusses the regional activity center of Woodbridge with Mary Hynes and Robert Brosnan of Arlington County, Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, Greg Goodwin of COG, and other members of the RFC.

Our kickoff meeting offered excellent opportunities for RFC members to engage with each other on a variety of topics, including the question of what's included in the concept of "complete communities." What surprised me the most was the fact that there was a great deal of agreement among participants about the essential elements. These included a variety of transit options to integrate activity centers into the region, a mix of land uses to enhance walkability and livability within the community, and the presence of a variety of economic and social opportunities nearby.

I was also impressed by the initial focus on transit-oriented affordable housing. Too often, large scale planning exercises like this pay only lip services to things like public safety, education, and affordable housing. I look forward to a process that ensures these priorities are factored into planning in a meaningful way.

Alicia Lewis of COG moderates a panel on transit-oriented affordable housing programs

The next step will be to organize working subcommittees that will consider the definition and identification of "regional activity centers," taking baseline measurements of those centers, and developing future planning approaches to help them grow according to the goals identified by the Region Forward plan.

As with any diverse coalition, the goals and needs of members will not always align, but everyone involved is committed to the vision in the Region Forward report. I am excited to be serving with so many outstanding public servants and representatives from such diverse communities, but I am even more excited about strengthening the dialogue between these groups and the GGW community.

It was obvious from the kick off meeting that there is great potential for GGW to have an impact on regional planning through the course of the RFC's work. In the future, we envision live chats, guest posts and other forums to ensure that your voices are heard as we continue planning the future of the greater Washington region.

Arlington already has a "complete streets" policy, which has animated the development of its Master Transportation Plan. For instance, the pedestrian and bicycle components envision completion of the respective networks, increasing use and safety, and integrating the various modes of transportation.

The streets element, however, may ultimately prove to be the most significant facet of the Plan.

The introduction to the draft streets section places Arlington's complete streets policy front and center:

The street is where every element of transportation must be addressed and accommodated: pedestrians, transit, bicycles, passenger vehicles, trucks, and parking. It is also where many other aspects of public life take place, including displaying civic pride, setting the tone for public life and commerce, providing space for vegetation, and providing storm water management. The street binds and enhances a community so that the public thoroughfares serve it.

The draft plan also offers several recommendations with respect to "limited access highways" such as Arlington Boulevard, the GW Parkway, and Interstates 66 and 395. These recommendations include several designed to encourage high-occupancy vehicle use, such as increasing the hours HOV restrictions are in effect, increased bus usage, use of "intelligent transportation systems" as well as consideration of variable-occupancy toll lanes and congestion pricing.

By envisioning expanded pedestrian and bicycle access to bridges, the proposal will have the effect of encouraging additional alternatives to commuting by motor vehicle.

The new "typology" of streets will guide the redesign and rebuilding of arterial streets. In particular, the draft proposes six arterial street designations. The plan anticipates that placing arterial streets into these categories will help the County achieve its goal of complete streets by more clearly identifying how particular streets fit into the overall transportation network.

The draft also provides a typology for local streets, with specific design criteria. It contemplates the criteria and appropriateness of pedestrian-oriented streets. Such streets are "characterized by shared use of the entire street area by motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists."

Overall, the draft streets element is clearly driven by the County's previously adopted general policies, including the strong support of a complete streets policy. It is only fitting that the County complete its own Master Transportation Plan with the streets element.

Crystal City, as it currently exists, is not well integrated into the surrounding community. Highway 1 cuts the bulk of Crystal City off from most its neighbors, creating what Jane Jacobs calls a "border vacuum." Crystal City offers relatively few attractions for those that live near, further lessening the incentives to ever go there.

There are also some very good aspects to Crystal City. Nonetheless, Crystal City could be better. It could be better integrated into the surrounding community, offer a greater choice of activities and amenities, a more walkable environment, and more easily accessible public and green spaces.

The Crystal City sector plan is a step towards many of these changes.

The plan doesn't do anything on its own. It functions as a planning tool to manage future development and redevelopment over the next 50 years. The plan itself doesn't approve the construction or destruction of any buildings. It doesn't cut down any trees or remove any parks. Although implementation of the sector plan requires certain zoning changes, each major project will be analyzed by its own merits in the normal course at the block level.

What it does do is to provide a guiding vision for the future of Crystal City and the surrounding areas. That vision includes the following:

• An updated, comprehensive transit plan that would relieve traffic and better connect Crystal City to neighboring communities while recreating Highway 1 as an urban boulevard.

• Establishing a recognizable block structure by reducing the number of superblocks and adding connecting neighborhood streets, providing a more cohesive and integrated neighborhood with greater access to storefront retail and entertainment options.
  
• Adding new, dedicated parks and public spaces (including a substantial new central park) in excess of any losses realized by redevelopment (much of Crystal City's current "green" or "public" space exists in traffic medians or on private land where it is not protected from future development.).

• Increased maximum building heights over much of Crystal City, facilitating greater density and ultimately creating an incentive for property owners to engage in full scale redevelopment rather than simply rehabbing the interiors of existing buildings.

In the absence of this guiding vision, the region will still see growth, construction, redevelopment, increases in traffic and additional usage of transit. But the sector plan is designed to ensure Crystal City grows in a managed, structured, and coherent fashion.

The plan will support, to the greatest extent possible, diversity of use, a more traditional street grid, integration into the surrounding community, and greater amenities. It includes proposals to help relieve some of the traffic and transit congestion that is inevitable based upon growth in the region.

Moreover, adding density creates the opportunity for additional amenities that would benefit Crystal City and existing neighborhoods, such as new schools, recreational opportunities, public health facilities, and affordable housing.

Last year, the Crystal City Vision Plan (the basis for the proposed sector plan) won a Charter Award from the Congress on New Urbanism. For more information on the Crystal City redevelopment process, check out the dedicated website.

Unfortunately, despite the plaudits, and despite an incredibly transparent process that engaged extensively with community members and stakeholders, there is a great deal of opposition to the proposals from some quarters.

Some are don't think the county will follow through with the infrastructure requirements of a 50-year plan, or don't think it can effectively provide carrots for good development instead of just sticks to prevent bad development. These are legitimate concerns, particularly for Crystal City residents who would be extremely troubled to find the redevelopment plan abandoned in 10 years with projects left incomplete and goals unachieved.

Similarly, others worry about giving out substantial increases in density before adding public services like schools and medical care, in particular. Still others are afraid to adopt a plan that will likely eliminate certain existing open spaces based on the promise of future (even superior) public open spaces. And as usual, some are concerned about building heights, traffic, and public safety.

While many of these concerns are valid, there are those that seem unlikely to ever support a plan to increase density one iota, restructure a single street, or redevelop a single parcel of land. They use innuendo and suggestion to argue that the County (inexplicably) wants to enrich developers on the backs of the local residents.

These critics are unwilling to recognize the serious negative effects on the horizon as a result of the BRAC process, which will move thousands of jobs out of Crystal City. Moreover, they refuse to acknowledge the benefits of making Crystal City a high-quality public realm with a robust diversity of uses and neighborhood activity 18 hours a day.

However, the information issue doesn't seem great enough support such a major change. If board members find it difficult to obtain accurate, candid information from department heads without the interference of the County Manager, it would be far simpler to adopt policy changes to fix that particular problem.

Change Arlington also argues that the current system places the responsibility for budget development in the City Manager, who is not electorally accountable. However, the County Board must ultimately adopt the budget, and they are politically accountable. If the primary concern revolves around information flow and political accountability, it seems this problem could be solved within the existing governmental system.

The move to district or ward-based representation is even more substantial and could bring many unintended consequences. Minority parties in Arlington, including the Green Party and the Republican Party, have signed onto the effort because it may improve their chances for electing individual members. But increased minority party representation is not the stated goal of the project. And even if it were, I'm not sure that it would make the proposal more popular, given the current dominance of the Democratic Party in Arlington.

District-based elections would amplify parochial interests and potentially undermine the Board's ability to make hard decisions that benefit the county as a whole. Arlington currently has a very well developed and strong system of neighborhood organizations who know how to make their voices heard. The new structure could both make the organizations themselves obsolete, while amplifying the significance of the anti voices in those organizations.

Neither of those consequences would be positive. Pro-change advocates argue that Arlington County is simply too large to be effectively governed by a board comprised of at-large members. But they don't point to any particular issue that would be resolved differently or more effectively with district-based members. If it isn't broke, what are we fixing?

The Change Arlington campaign is being spearheaded by public safety unions in reaction to budget cuts. But would this new "county board" form of government really solve the problems of lean budgets? And what would the consequences of such change be for Arlington's status as a leader in smart growth and transit-oriented development?

Would the move to district or ward based elections result in better representation of local interest? Or would it neuter the board's ability to move forward with innovative strategies for growth? Would it improve Arlington or would it eliminate one of Arlington's distinctive characteristics?

Does Arlington's government need a change? What do you think?