Posts by Erik Weber

JBG recently began demolishing several buildings on the southwest corner of 14th & U Streets, NW to prepare to build of a major, mixed-use project. The sidewalk on the west side of 14th Street abruptly closed, with a fence blocking it off for more than half the block.

The 14th Street corridor has endured near-constant construction for several years now. Other projects have included varying types of temporary walkways, from bare-bones plastic jersey barriers to lit, covered scaffolding. When construction activities have required closing the sidewalk altogether it generally been for only a day, if not hours, at a time. Why not here?

No sidewalk during raze

Eric Fidler posed the question to DDOT, and an inspector gave this response:

The sidewalk is closed and pedestrians are routed across the roadway in accordance with DDOT's Pedestrian Safety and Work Zone Standards. This policy provides a matrix for what methods of pedestrian access are the most appropriate based on the phase of construction. In this case the project is undergoing raze. During raze activities the sidewalk is to be closed with pedestrians routed across the street.

Raze is a short period, typically lasting a few weeks to just more than a month. After this phase the sidewalk is to be opened or a pedestrian walkway is to be provided. It is DDOT's goal to maintain the pedestrian path on both sides of a roadway and will only allow the closure when it is unsafe to maintain it or when the work requires that the sidewalk be closed (e.g. during sidewalk construction).

It's true that DDOT's guidelines recommend closing the sidewalk during the raze. But is that appropriate? A raze doesn't mean dynamiting the building so it just collapses. Workers spend most of the raze period carefully removing materials, mostly from the interior and rear of the block.

Meanwhile, many active sites around the city long past the raze stage pose far more potential danger to pedestrians than sites razing existing structures. A few blocks north on 14th Street, a large 11-story building is being constructed with a covered walkway along part of the frontage, and an in-street, open walkway along the rest.

Recently, tower cranes have been lifting multi-ton sections of preformed concrete into place, frequently swinging directly above the pedestrians walking below. What about that poses less danger than a one-story brick facade being knocked down on the interior of a block?

When closing a block, especially where there are open businesses on either side, a large percentage of pedestrians will still ignore the signs and walk through along the fencing. By closing the sidewalk altogether under the auspices that any pedestrian accommodations would be dangerous, it creates a far more dangerous situation. Not only do people still have to walk past the construction entrance, they're doing so in traffic.

Mid-block closures also harm remaining businesses on either side because of the reduced foot traffic from those people that do cross the street. Even where an entire block is closed, businesses on the same side of the street on adjacent blocks likely see a drop in foot traffic. Having been forced to cross, people generally continue walking on the opposite side of the street if the light permits.

While the weekdays produce a lot of foot traffic, the weekends are even busier, and would benefit most from a temporary walkway. Yet, on the past few weekends (and even occasionally during the week), cars could park in the curbside lane, which is used for receiving during the week. Pedestrians still had to walk in the street.

If this lane is only needed for construction activities some of the time, it should be a walkway the rest of the time, not parking spaces. If DDOT and JBG can get pedestrians out of traffic for even 30% of the week, that would be a major safety improvement.

Access creates complications

The situation at 14th & U is complicated because the strangely shaped parcel is difficult to access. The project is mostly mid-block, so it can't receive trucks and stage materials from a side street.

Alley residents are adamantly opposed to the construction company using the alley. There are several alley dwellings immediately behind the site. Many people in that ANC opposed the use of T Street for construction. As a result, the construction company can only receive trucks and materials from 14th Street. All the other projects along 14th are staging along a side street or in an adjacent alley.

JBG says they have been trying to work with DDOT to create an alternative pedestrian path. DDOT officials, however, insist that there is no safe option because the construction site entrance and staging area are on 14th Street.

A JBG spokesman said that DDOT will not let them open a pedestrian path because of this staging issue on 14th Street. JBG is still considering two alternatives, neither of which is ideal:

• Cut down two street trees and create a path in the treebox zone. There would still be issues since they would have to allow trucks and materials to cross the pathway. Trucks will be received in the parking lane as currently planned.
  
• Receive trucks in the parking lane, since there is nowhere else for them, and convert the bike lane to a pedestrian path.

While JBG's comments imply that DDOT opposes a walkway even during construction phases, DDOT's John Lisle denied that was the case. "A walkway will be provided after the razing period precisely because there is so much construction in the area," Lisle said.

Trucks turning into an alley or side street at construction sites elsewhere on 14th Street pose just as much a danger to pedestrians as those that will enter an exit the JBG site at mid-block. But DDOT hasn't closed R or Swann Streets because of the danger to people on foot.

JBG should be able to use the parking lane or sidewalk for a temporary walkway and establish a site entrance along 14th Street. They should be required to mark it very clearly, and pedestrians and construction workers should both treat it as an intersection.

Instead of being a roadblock, DDOT needs to encourage a developer that wants to accommodate all of the road users and take responsibility for everyone's safety at their site. Preserving traffic lanes and neighbors' peace and quiet is important, but so is providing safe, reasonable accommodations for pedestrians.

In the heart of downtown, the CityCenter site has been under construction for over a year. Construction has taken over the sidewalk around more than ¾ of the site, yet only the northern section has any temporary walkway.

On any given day, pedestrians walk along the construction fencing on 9th, 11th, and H Streets, in traffic because they don't want to deal with the hassle and delay of sometimes 4 additional crosswalks to get to their destinations.

Throughout the site excavation, the developer closed all the sidewalks. This happened despite DDOT's policy stating that an open or covered walkway should be provided on the sidewalk if possible, or otherwise in the roadway. Once frame construction begins, which happened recently, the preference then is a covered walkway in the roadway.

At the construction site of the Convention Center hotel a few blocks north, at 9th and Massachusetts NW, the sidewalks there have also been closed for months throughout multiple stages of construction.

The problem is not unique to Northwest. In Northeast, on Bladensburg Road near the "starburst" intersection, the sidewalk is closed for an entire block on the north side, where a new condo development is rising. In Southeast, in the Navy Yard area, sidewalks are closed at 4th Street by the upcoming Boilermaker Shops, and on various blocks around the last phase of EYA's Capitol Quarter townhome development.

In some cases, upon receiving complaints, DDOT has inspected sites like these and then ordered the developer to provide a walkway. This is good, but pedestrian accommodation should not be reactionary. It needs to be a priority in the traffic management and permitting process.

Where sidewalk space is tight, DDOT should show leadership and use road space to create temporary walkways. Pedestrians should not have to bear the sole inconvenience of the construction. Sometimes it means closing a lane of traffic to move the sidewalk (and bike lane where necessary) out from their original location.

Stronger policies and enforcement will encourage developers to use their available space to its maximum extent, instead of leaving tools and junk lying around like the picture to the right. If they are forced to get permits for walkways in the roadway, this will also encourage them to bring construction activities back within the parcel envelope as quickly as possible, to the benefit of everyone.

On the northeast corner of the CityCenter site, the developer has managed to preserve close to 100 public parking spaces. In light of this, saying that the sidewalks have to be closed because of space constraints is simply insulting.

Some may say that the inconvenience people on foot face by having to cross the street is minor, and doesn't merit burdening construction planners with stricter requirements and additional safety measures, or potentially inconveniencing drivers by closing a lane of traffic. Yet we impose all kinds of other, more onerous restrictions on developers for far more capricious reasons.

Closing a sidewalk on one side of the street inconveniences pedestrians in the same way that closing a two-way street to one entire direction of traffic would drivers. If I am walking 4 blocks along one side of the street, and the sidewalk is closed for one of them, I have to cross at least two additional times, assuming there are no mid-block alleys, and the intersections are all simple 4-way intersections. This means waiting at least two additional light cycles and walking out of my way.

Many pedestrians choose not to endure the inconvenience, and instead endanger themselves and others by walking in the street rather than crossing.

Only in the rarest of cases are motorists asked to endure months-long closures like this. Why, then do DC's pedestrians have to deal with this every day?

As DC's urban population grows and development activity picks up again, it may be time to revisit the pedestrian accommodation policy. In the meantime, DDOT needs to better use the policy it has in place to keep pedestrians safe.

Where else in the city have builders been allowed to close sidewalks? Post them in the comments.

Last January, the Department of Energy announced the Decathlon would not take place on the Mall as it had the previous four times. Word was the Department of the Interior, home to the inimitable National Park Service, had pressured DOE because of the Decathlon's negative impact on the Mall's otherwise pristine greenery. NPS applauded the move.

Rumors later surfaced that the Decathlon would land at National Harbor, the bastion of sustainability located outside the Beltway, with dismal transit access and no incidental foot traffic.

After protests from competitors, fans and even Congress members, DOE finally settled on West Potomac Park, at least in central DC, though not terribly convenient or visible. As a result, the organizers had to provide a costly shuttle service from the closest metro stations. The permit conditions and the lack of large paths also required they lay down more tile flooring than ever before to protect the park's grass.

Whatever the cause of the westward move, it will be real detriment to Washington, DC and to the vitality of our monumental core. The National Mall, which has been called a failed public space, suffers from a lack of nearby residences and non-museum attractions.

The two weeks of the Solar Decathlon is the only time you can find dwelling units other than the White House in the region's most central, yet least populated Census tract. Since several team members have to live in their houses, the event literally doubles the population.

Most events on the mall last several hours or a day, attracting people for a very specific purpose only to cast them out again as soon as the event is over. People come for the event, not for the place.

The Solar Decathlon turned the National Mall into a destination, a true place with an interesting streetscape. While the hours to go in the houses were limited, people could admire the craftsmanship from outside any time of day. This encouraged lingering, what Jane Jacobs called one of the most important functions of a good public space.

The Decathlon's placemaking ability was apparent this year, despite its less-than-optimal location. West Potomac Park, which is typically only visited by kickballers and 10k runners, felt lively for two weeks.

It was also a great opportunity for residents and visitors of the nation's capital and fastest growing city to see the potential beauty in compact, energy-efficient living. I can attest to this.

During this year's Decathlon, I was right in the middle of the first-time home buying experience. We were feeling the temptation of the "go farther, get more" mindset that fueled the inexorable creep of suburbia. Seeing small, but beautiful and impeccably designed entries emphasized to us what you can do very little space. We came away fascinated, and firmer in our resolve to forgo space in order to find a excellent urban location.

How did the Decathlon end up in Orange County? The City of Irvine and the Orange County Great Park fought for it.

Meanwhile, it's unclear if NPS even submitted a bid. When asked, DOE said it couldn't release a list of applicants or discuss specific bids. I contacted NPS last week to see if they or an associated group had submitted a bid for the Mall. They haven't yet responded.

Of course, given the agency's joy at this year's move from the Mall, it's doubtful they made much effort to keep it here.

Where other regions have entities that fight to bring vibrant events like the Solar Decathlon in, the Washington region does not. Residents here suffer because the Park Service, as a national entity, doesn't actually represent their interests, though they are its most immediate stakeholders.

It's only fair that the Department of Energy spread the love of the Solar Decathlon around the country. But the US loses the ability to truly showcase its commitment to sustainability. Building two dozen passive houses on America's front lawn, blocks from the halls of power, sends a powerful message.

The Solar Decathlon certainly attracts visitors from afar on its own. But it also benefits immensely from being located in a place where there are hundreds of thousands of other travelers who would stop by given the easy opportunity.

Washington, DC is the nation's capital and a huge, international tourist destination. Irvine, California, is a distant suburb of Los Angeles with 215,000 people. Not much of a showcase.

Even in West Potomac Park, with the Washington Monument peeking over the trees on one end, and the Jefferson Memorial rotunda on the other, it was still clear where you were.

Not any more. Moving the Decathlon around has some merit, but the new location is a true shame. Few think of sustainability when they think about Orange County.

What's more, Uber can actually improve the efficiency of "black cars," the for-hire sedans which spend a large portion of the day idling. While the Uber founder says they discourage drivers from accepting Uber trips while they are on a job, it is distinctly feasible to do with their system.

I used to live in Foggy Bottom, and when major summits came to town, the neighborhood would be covered with Town Cars and Tahoes with Virginia "For Hire" license plates. With the IMF, World Bank, and numerous upscale hotels in the area, the vehicles would sit idling all over Foggy Bottom and the West End. The cars often took up parking spaces for hours, double parking at times.

Uber gives them the ability to provide some trips instead of blocking lanes of traffic and every conceivable parking space. This would be good for everyone.

Ironically, the limousine industry should be the one that is more concerned about Uber. Their business is likely to change as long is Uber is around. If someone can book a black car on-demand, pay a mileage-based rate, and then book another one for a return trip, without having to pay for time in between, why, except for the most demanding situations, would anyone bother to hire a car service?

What's more, the taxi industry actually stands to benefit from the presence of Uber. At peak times, such as New Years' Eve, there are not enough cabs to go around, period. Uber maintains their reliability by using "surge pricing" to price out many people and find those customers who are desperate, or well heeled, enough to pay for that reliability.

At high traffic times, Uber takes some people who would have otherwise tried to hail a cab, leaving fewer people to fight over the limited cab supply, and ultimately making traveling by taxi cab easier and more reliable.

Lawyers, Uber, cabbies, the Taxi Commission, and possibly DC councilmembers will debate the legality of Uber's operation in coming weeks. Residents should hope they come to a conclusion that lets the service, and others like it, keep running.

There are two reasons adding additional docks to a high-traffic neighborhood in the form of new stations instead of tacking them on to existing stations might be worth the extra money: increased customer convenience, and the potential to ease rebalancing needs.

Empty or full stations are inevitable at times. The more this happens, though, the more inconvenience it creates for users. If a customer comes to a full station with their bike and has to go another 5 blocks only to retrace their steps and walk another 2 blocks to their end destination, it won't be long before they give up Capital Bikeshare as a primary, reliable mode of transportation.

Of course, spreading docks among more, smaller stations rather than one mega-station doesn't make them less likely to be full. If 30 docks fill up at a single station, 3 clustered stations with 10 docks will probably fill up just as much, and cost more to build.

But having the 3 smaller stations gives members or potential members a shorter walk to the nearest station, making the system more valuable for everyone.

Higher station density and more new stations will undoubtedly attract new users and with them new revenue. At the same time, with strategic planning, closer stations can reduce the frequency and cost of rebalancing bikes throughout the day.

If there are 5 stations within a 3 block radius, a couple stations can be full or empty and as long as the other stations have bikes or docks, the system maintains its usability and convenience for people coming or going from that vicinity.

Currently, if the Dupont Circle station fills up or empties out, Alta has to dispatch someone pretty much immediately to rebalance, since the dearth of other immediately nearby stations will make it a huge inconvenience.

With tight station clusters in activity centers, Bikeshare could more easily monitor "levels of inconvenience" to prioritize rebalancing. If a primary station is full but there are some docks available at nearby stations, that poses only a mild inconvenience and can receive a lower priority for rebalancing.

If the biggest station is full and several of the surrounding stations are too, leaving docks available at only 1 or 2 stations in the area, that would be a medium inconvenience, and should be rebalanced sooner, meaning it might preempt another mild inconvenience situation. If all of the stations in a neighborhood were completely full, that would be a major inconvenience and require rebalancing as soon as possible.

As the system continues to grow in popularity, adding more stations in activity centers is inevitable. In some of the most popular neighborhoods, it will be virtually impossible for DDOT to build single stations that are large enough that they always have a bike or empty dock available.

It's difficult to measure whether the extra costs of new stations outweigh their benefits. What's more, beyond the cost of the station capital, each new site has to be planned, measured for size and sunlight, vetted with the community, and permitted. This process also has costs.

Eventually, though, DDOT will run into space constraints for these stations anyway, making it impossible to expand any further. While there is significant extra cost to adding new stations versus simply expanding those already in place, in the long run, the system would reap benefits. The ultimate question is whether we should prioritize expansion efforts on increasing density or increasing coverage.

Caroline Armijo: I'm thankful for the fountain in the Kogod Courtyard at Gallery Place. I am thankful for story time and the children's division at MLK Library.

And I'm thankful that my two-year-old daughter knows several presidents because of the Nationals' presidents race.

Rob Pitingolo: I'm thankful for having a local government that gets stuff done. As much as we often complain about this, anyone who has lived in a less progressive city can appreciate that it feels literally impossible at times to accomplish even the simplest urbanist goals.

Adam Lewis: I'm thankful for the Metro operators, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and other public servants who are spending time away from their families on Thanksgiving so that we can get safely home to ours.

Adam Froehlig: I'm thankful for a great group of folks to chat with; and for bike paths, bike lanes, and cycletracks.

Mitch Wander: I'm thankful that we have so many sports fields; that many our communities continue to enhance walkability and livability for our senior citizens.

For the Circulator; and that it's so easy to fix potholes, signs and burnt out streetlights through 311.dc.gov and seeclickfix.com.

Anne-Marie Bairstow: I'm grateful for the Metrobus that goes to Deal Middle School so that my daughter can get herself to school. I'm grateful that my daughter and her friends can walk to each other's houses and to get frozen yogurt.

I'm grateful to be able to walk my younger kids to school every day and to see neighbors on the way.

I'm grateful for the Stoddert soccer league and northwest little league and all the parents who volunteer to coach and support.

Geoff Hatchard: I'm thankful for the fact that, even when things are screwed up, it's possible to change them for the better, because we have a great collection of people in this city who want it to be greater!

Malcolm Kenton: I'm thankful for Metrorail and Metrobus (despite their shortcomings) and Capital Bikeshare, and MARC, VRE and Amtrak (all of which need increased service).

Thankful to be able to live car-free in DC and not miss out on much; for a thriving local economy of small, locally-owned businesses and old and new neighborhood establishments.

And for our region's copious amounts of green space, compared to other urban areas, especially Rock Creek Park, the Mall, the National Arboretum and Anacostia River watershed parks, the network of bike- and transit-accessible suburban greenways, and Bloomingdale's own Crispus Attucks Park.

Jamie Scott: I too am thankful that I can live car free in the District without being stuck or limited in where I can go.

I'm thankful for a bus system that is safe, reliable and well used. Despite some problems, Metrobus is a system superior to many cities.

I'm thankful for a dedication to safe biking, walking, and transit overall from our city government.

Jaime Fearer: I'm thankful for the diversity and passion of our community advocates, including those who fight to save our social safety net, and groups like CNHED, who work to ensure that people of all income levels are able to afford to live in this great city.

Celine Tobal: I'm thankful for being able to walk to the grocery store, to a movie theater, and to restaurants. I'm thankful for great museums that are free.

I'm also thankful for living in a city where I hear people speaking a language other than English every day.

Topher Mathews: I'm thankful that due to the efforts of Harriet, Gabe, and others in the government as well as people like David and others outside the government, the whole public discussion is fought on much friendlier grounds for urbanists. We don't win everything we want, but the truths urbanists hold to be self-evident are gaining more public awareness if not acceptance.

Eric Hallstrom: I'm thankful for the great diversity of neighborhoods and people that make up Greater Washington.

I'm thankful to live in a place (Arlington County) that is committed to many of the urbanist principles shared by members of the GGW community, including walkable communities, a variety of transportation options, mixed use development, and increased density.

Jacques Arsenault: I am thankful for Capital Bikeshare and DC's bike lanes, which turned me in to a bike commuter this year (now with my own bike, mostly). And I'm thankful for Metrobis and Circulator which give me other options when I don't quite feel like riding in the rain.

I'm also thankful for advocates of all stripes, who work to make this a better, stronger community.

Miles Grant: I'm thankful that DC not only has lots of great places to live, work and play, but transit that allows me to get from one to the other in ways that are low-polluting and road rage-free.

Kevin Beekman: I'm thankful that all of the holiday essentials fit in the "trunk" of my bike for the ride home along a fabulous trail under a congested I-395.

Veronica Davis: I'm thankful for the investment in new libraries around the city, especially the Anacostia, Dorothy Irene Height, Francis A Gregory branches close to my house.

I'm thankful for DDOT's commitment to the Capital Bikeshare Program east of the river. And I'm thankful for the H.I.V.E. (Home of Innovators Visionaries) for providing a low cost incubator space for small businesses in Ward 8.

Erik Weber: I'm thankful for reusable shopping bags and a grocery store within walking distance and for Meridian Hill Park, a lively multi-purpose, multifaceted green space.

I'm also thankful for wide sidewalks when you don't feel like riding your bike up the hill.

Lastly, I'm thankful for a community of people who care passionately about the past, present and future of our great city. Happy Thanksgiving!

To the credit of the Secret Service and the Treasury Department, the northern end of the closure is located at a crosswalk where pedestrians can cross to the east side of 15th. On the south side, however, the closure starts a quarter of a block past the E Street/Penn Ave intersection.

Realizing this misled pedestrians, Secret Service installed caution tape on the norther corner of 15th & E to prompt pedestrians to cross the street at that crosswalk.

On both ends of the closure, officials have installed clear signage instructing pedestrians to cross the street and not to walk in the bike lanes. Unsurprisingly, no one pays attention to them.

Why would they after all? Across the city and the country, pedestrians are killed while walking in car-traffic lanes where a sidewalk is closed or impassable. A bike lane appears far safer to a pedestrian than walking in traffic.

Despite all good intentions, the Secret Service's closure has created a situation which is probably far more dangerous on a day-to-day basis than the relatively unlikely event of a piece of granite balustrade falling toward the sidewalk.

Pedestrians walking in both directions fill a cycle track designed for bi-directional use, which often forces cyclists erratically in and out of traffic, many times riding head-on into traffic.

The best solution would create a temporary sidewalk in the existing bike lanes and place temporary barriers to create a new cycle track in the next lane over. In order to best accommodate car traffic, DDOT could temporarily move the center line of 15th Street one lane to the east and restrict stopping in the eastern most lane, leaving two northbound and two southbound lanes.

If this cannot be accomplished for lack of political willpower, then the responsible parties could at least change the signage and instruct pedestrians to use the southbound half of the cycletrack, northbound bicyclists to use their normal lane space, and southbound cyclists to take the full traffic lane next to the cycletrack as they had to do prior to its installation anyway.

Unfortunately, inconveniencing and endangering cyclists and pedestrians is not a new subject. We have written frequently about jurisdictions' predilection for closing sidewalks without providing legitimate alternatives to pedestrians. Even in DC this happens, despite DDOT's policy that construction permit holders must replicate as best as possible the pedestrian pathway which has been closed at a construction site.

Perhaps the worst irony in this case is that the Treasury official, who writes of the sidewalk closure with absolutely no mention of how the reality of the situation plays out, is none other than former DDOT director Dan Tangherlini.

This stretch of 15th Street is a particularly good place to underline the danger and inequity of the habit of closing sidewalks without alternatives. This may be one of the city's busiest pedestrian and bicycle blocks.

According to a summer count by DDOT, the Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes between 14th and 15th Street see between 60 and 170 riders per hour during morning and evening rush hours, most of whom are coming off of or continuing onto the 15th Street cycle track.

In terms of pedestrians traffic, this section of 15th Street is the most direct path for tourists going from Lafayette Square and other points north to the main entrance for White House tours. It also is a direct connection for workers moving between the Departments of Commerce and Treasury as well as a popular route connecting the Mall to the White House.

Why should these 15th Street users bear the entire burden caused by the damage to this building? Why shouldn't motorists be asked to share in the inconvenience?

The Treasury has said it expects the current closure to last through December. Once the railing has been removed, it will be repaired off site and then placed back on the building. Treasury is estimating this will require another lengthy closure, this time during the height of the tourist season in 2012.

Unfortunately, DDOT has not had a particularly good record of enforcing its temporary pedestrian walkway policy under the Gray Administration. The north side of H Street along the CityCenterDC site and Massachusetts Ave in front of the Convention Center Marriott site are two high-profile examples. Since the federal government is enforcing this closure, it may be even less likely that DDOT will intervene to improve the accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians.

Whatever the final compromise might be, the ultimate point is that the current situation is not a tolerable solution. It should no longer be acceptable for pedestrians and cyclists to bear the full burden and inconvenience of construction projects which benefit everyone. Especially not in locations like this where there are as many of them as there are motorists.

Construction may require temporary closure of the 295 Eastbound on-ramp at 8th Street and Virginia Avenue. This would force drivers heading across the 11th Street Bridge to use the on-ramp at 11th and N Streets.

As part of the NEPA process, CSX and DDOT will hold several public meetings, and this first one was billed as a "scoping meeting." Here's the presentation.

While CSX provided plenty of nametagged people to talk to members of the public and address questions, the open format left more that a few people scratching their heads. A number of attendees expressed their disappointment that CSX didn't begin the meeting with some kind of general presentation about project basics, like tentative designs and schedule, need and potential impacts.

"I don't even really know what's happening," said one nearby resident. "Is this tunnel only one option? I'm not a shy person, so I have no problem asking questions of these people, but I could see how a lot of people can get intimidated."

That may indeed have happened. The organizers boasted about 100 attendees signing in, but it appeared that only half of those were in any way engaged in asking questions of submitting comments, with many others quickly scanning past the placards before heading off into the night.

What's more, the meeting had a decidedly superficial feel to it. The placards scattered about the room contained very little information beyond introductory NEPA facts, a very basic project scope, and a lot of pro-freight rail propaganda, including some nifty computer animations about the National Gateway project.

As David Garber, ANC Commissioner for the affected neighborhood, pointed out, the meeting was lacking in answers to residents' most important questions: what happens during construction and what does the community get out at the end? "Virginia Avenue is not a great public space currently," Garber said, "so there's an opportunity here to change that."

So while many residents were left wondering why they should be made to endure huge, several year long disruptions to their daily lives, there was no sign anywhere of CSX's proposed community amenities.

CSX is clearly making significant efforts to reach out to the community. They're going to need it to overcome an earlier snafu in which the railroad and its consultants used old satellite images for preliminary planning. The old photos left planners unaware that Virginia Avenue was no longer a strip of vacant parcels, but instead a burgeoning neighborhood of new row houses and a senior apartment building.

Still, this event did little to answer residents' questions or quell their fears that the project would be a major disruption to their daily lives. While asking for comments, questions and alternatives is a laudable effort, it is difficult for the public to make reasonable suggestions if they no so little about the actual impacts they can expect.

If you live or work near Virginia Avenue or frequent the SE-SW freeway, DDOT and CSX want to hear your concerns. The NEPA process requires a 30-day comment period, leaving interested members of the public until October 14th to submit their comments. Comments can be submitted via email to contact@virginiaavenuetunnel.com or via the project website.

Update: The boards from the meeting are now posted online.

The range of expected daily boardings for the whole network has been revised to 165,600-207,000, down some 20% from the originally estimated 213,100-266,400 boardings. This drop in predicted ridership ripples throughout the report, resulting in lengthened recommended headways, increased total operating and maintenance costs, and reduced farebox recovery ratios.

These revisions may not be all bad given the large number of transit projects that have suffered from inflated ridership estimates and too-conservative operating cost projections.

On the other hand, lower predicted ridership and higher costs may give notoriously road-focused MCDOT reason to whittle away at the plan as it moves ever so slowly to fruition. After all, BRT's broad spectrum of implementation levels and scalability can be both a blessing and a curse.

What's also disappointing about the plan is its focus on traditional travel patterns of the county today. The model even assumed "unconstrained availability of parking" at three potential park-and-ride stations, underscoring the fact that this study is not really a change of approach for Montgomery County's transit planning. Of the 16 potential routes, only 3 of them are true cross-county routes, while the rest move primarily north to south. 8 of the routes end at Metro stations.

The emphasis on access to Metro stations and importance of parking availability in the ridership models indicates a continued emphasis on commuter trips that start in a car, rather than in a transit-oriented development that supports all-hours trips that don't require a car at all.

Most of all, though, the plan doesn't come close to proposing true Bus Rapid Transit.

The system would use articulated, 60-foot, hybrid low floor "BRT Vehicles" with automatic vehicle locators and other technology. Interestingly these "BRT Vehicles" sound remarkably like the newest 60-foot hybrid buses with WMATA operates on its heaviest routes like the X2 and 71.

Only "major stations serving at least 500 daily boardings by the year 2040," would get infrastructure upgrades beyond a typical bus stop, and even then, "stations" will primarily consist of an "extended shelter, benches," and some additional aesthetic treatments.

First, for a well-designed BRT route, these treatments should be afforded to every stop. Consistent station treatment unifies a rapid transit system's "premium transit service" feel. What if some metro stations only had 200 foot platforms? Secondly, a true rapid transit service should not be serving any stops that don't attract 500 people per day anyway. If the density for this transit demand doesn't exist, those stops should be omitted from the BRT line to begin with.

Finally, the infrastructure choices may prove problematic. Where busways are recommended, which is only about two-thirds of the route length, the study proposes "guided busways" for a large portion of the infrastructure. The study doesn't offer more specific technology recommendations, but guided busways are relatively uncommon around the world, having never proved particularly beneficial for the additional investment they require.

Human Transit's Jarret Walker wrote last week upon the opening of the world's longest guided busway in Cambridgeshire, England:

"If this busway doesn't turn up significant benefits in customer experience, it will probably be the last, or at least the last to be done with guide-wheels. Adelaide's pioneering O-Bahn is now 25 years old, so one hopes the state of the art has moved on."

Guided busways have even been problematic in many cities. After a few years of operation, Edinburgh determined to tear out its busway and replace it with light rail. In Crawley, England, south of London, the Fastway system installed one-way guided busways in several places where previously had been poorly enforced bus lanes.

The result: only the two bus routes that were officially part of the Fastway system and had guidewheels could use the guideways, leaving the other bus lines to fend for themselves in mixed traffic. Even the Fastway routes have been sometimes stymied by this problem on the occasion that too many guided buses are out of service.

The primary benefit to guided busways is the fact that they allow designers to somewhat shrink the width of the required right of way. In other words: they give transit-skeptical planners and elected officials one more way to save precious SOV space.

Are the costs and headaches worth it? Doubtful, but we've already learned that Montgomery County will do practically anything to avoiding giving over space from cars to transit. Most of the other guided bus systems across the globe use the technology because there literally is not enough space for full-width lanes and busways in their chosen right-of-way.

Montgomery County has proposed, for much of the system, to build one-way busways that can be used by buses traveling in the peak direction, leaving buses traveling in the opposite direction to compete in mixed traffic. Does this mean that the busway will have station infrastructure on both sides of the guideway? Presumably. Bus stops or stations would also then need to be placed along the outide of the main roadway in both directions as well, further duplicating infrastructure.

This could mean that roads with one lane, reversible busways would need four stops at each station location. In the morning, the busway would need a right-side platform for southbound buses, while the sidewalk on the northbound curb would need a platform as well. In the afternoon, the busway would need a right-side platform for northbound buses (opposite the morning stop), and the sidewalk on the southbound curb would need a platform.

The logistical headache of operating bi-directional one-lane guideways, combined with the infrastructure duplication of building up to four stations in each direction along the guideways, emphasizes MCDOT's utter reluctance to actually reallocate space from single-occupancy vehicles to high-occupancy transit vehicles. This reluctance may very well land the County's nascent system among the ranks of America's countless other faux-BRTs.

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.