Posts by Joey Katzen

Giving inspiration to its former name, the old Parkington Shopping Center in Ballston once held claim to being the first shopping mall in the country to be built around a multilevel garage. The complex was redeveloped into the Ballston Common Mall in 1986. At that time, Arlington County built an adjacent replacement public garage but inexplicably sited it at an angle to Glebe Road.

Rooftop ice rink. Photo from Wikipedia/Robdrur.

Because of the unusual angular siting of the garage, the smartly designed glass elevator shaft opens onto an unappealing grassy triangle with mud patches where the groundcover has died. Neither an urban pocket park nor an attractively landscaped buffer, this section of the Ballston Common block lays fallow in a rapidly developing neighborhood.

Comprising approximately a quarter-acre on its triangular parcel, the lot sits on the least active front of the Ballston Common Mall complex. While other façades of the mall hold patio restaurant seating, retail entrances, and display cases, this lot is fronted only by a brick-and-concrete garage.

General site plan of the Ballston Common shopping mall. Empty "park" in green. Parking garage with rooftop ice rink in red.

Presently, this face is blessed with less pedestrian traffic than its other fronts, though that is bound to change as the redevelopment game washes anew over the surrounding blocks.

Owned variously by Arlington County and Macy's, Inc. as tax-free open space, the small bit of land is ripe for something better. But what?

Likely too small for an active grassy space, perhaps it could be hardscaped into a Belgian-blocked plaza with a series of eight or ten tall specimen trees, benches, and a kiosk offering another lunch option, as well as giving a small food business a low-rent opportunity.

Plaza proposal by author.

If you have any other ideas for this space, leave your thoughts in the comments. Do you use this space as it is now and think it could be better served simply by re-sodding the grass? Or do any changes need to wait until the other properties along Glebe Road have been redeveloped to be successful?

I Wish This Were... is a series in which Greater Greater Washington contributors imagine a better use for vacant properties and poorly-conceived public spaces in the DC area.

Glebe Road and the Chain Bridge, from the 1961 Arlington General Land Use Plan

This interchange remained on the books until 1975, when the County removed the proposed bridge and a number of other road projects (including, for a period of four years, I-66) from its Plans.

Glebe Road and the Chain Bridge, from the 1975 Arlington General Land Use Plan

On a related note that may become a later post on Greater Greater Washington, and as recounted by Zachary Schrag, Arlington County at the time was in a war with the state and the Federal Highway Administration over Interstate and Metro plans. In 1979, I-66 was restored in a compromise with the two other parties to run Metro underground in Arlington. However, the two other proposed bridges (the I-266 Three Sisters Bridge near Spout Run Parkway, and the Arizona Avenue Bridge suggested above) never made it back in after various battles.

The Park Service declined to answer any of our dozen specific questions. NPS National Capital Region spokesman Bill Line provided only the following cursory response: "There have only been recent, informal discussions between the NPS and DDOT about exploring the possibility of Capital BikeShare station placement on NPS property. No formal presentation or request from DDOT has been made. The NPS has a contractual agreement with Guest Services, Inc., for bike rental services, with Guest Services, Inc. having the right of first refusal for any new or additional services."

GSI defended the limiting of commercial services to those with concession agreements by arguing that they allow one to "enjoy the Lincoln Memorial without being approached by a t-shirt vendor who has set up shop on the steps." While, according to Rohr, the "'right' that [their] agreement ensures is the right of first refusal to new or additional similar services," when asked, he demurred from expanding upon the distinction between bikes rented for short point-to-point transportation (like Capital Bikeshare) and bikes rented for longer periods of time for leisure (such as those GSI currently offers "for $7 or $8 an hour" at "several of [their] locations").

Because GSI has "not been approached by any organization, including the National Park Service, DDOT, or Capital Bikeshare with regard to the placement of bike racks or bike rental facilities within any of the locations that [they] are contracted to operate on the National Mall and in the National Capital region," Rohr suggested it was "premature" for GSI to address specifics of possible programs that have never been proposed to them. Encouragingly, however, Rohr stated that GSI is "open to suggestions about other rental arrangements."

When asked about the nature of their contract with the NPS and its term, Rohr declined to answer specifics, but stated that "[t]here are no automatic contractual renewal terms." This might not matter, as the Park Service has been loathe to make changes to other concession agreements upon renewals in the past.

According to Rohr, the concession contract covers the "National Mall and Memorial Parks, and President's Park; also for the C&O Canal National Historic Park, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Rock Creek Park, and National Capital Parks-East." NPS lumps small parks—like Capitol Hill's squares and triangles—as part of the "National Mall and Memorial Parks" or "National Capital Parks-East" divisions.

NPS has been experimenting with an alternate bikesharing system known as B-Cycle for its employees since the fall of 2009 and appears to have at least some interest in expanding bikesharing to its visitors. As with most decisions in the region, the strength of area leadership will likely determine whether the players can all come to the table to ensure an interoperable system.

We requested comment from the Park Service and will release updates as we have them. In the meantime, if a dialogue with the NPS proves difficult, perhaps DDOT, Arlington, and Capital Bikeshare could directly engage with GSI on the issue as well.

Update: This article has been amended to include the Park Service's response.

Regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, these offset credits are generated by thousands of individual projects that reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Examples include reforestation, methane collection, and the generation of renewable energy through nonpolluting methods. In addition to carbon offsets that nations mandate under Kyoto, there is also a growing "voluntary market" to allow polluters to offset their pollution by choice.

Though it's not often discussed in this country, the market for carbon trading is enormous. In 2007, noting that the carbon trading market could approach $1 trillion a year in a decade, the head of Barclays Capital Environmental Markets stated, "Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall."

According to CityRyde founders Timothy Ericson and Jason Meinzer, a bike-sharing operator could net a million dollars a year (or more) from selling on the voluntary market the carbon credits earned by its customers using their Inspire system.

Capital Bikeshare's annual operating costs are expected to be about $1.4 million/year, with 60-70% recovered from user fees. The 1100-bike system cost about $5 million in capital costs. Thus, if Inspire were implemented, it might suggest that a system comparable to Capital Bikeshare could cover most of its operating costs in a year, or else expand by 200 bikes a year at no cost.

Whether it all pans out as the founders predict is something that will be left to time to prove, but Ericson makes it sound simple: the market is there, the four major bike-sharing manufacturers are in various stages of discussion with CityRyde, the agency operators who have heard about it are excited, and all that's left is for bike-sharing to be validated as a carbon offset.

Under Kyoto, the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is the sole accrediting methodology for new forms of carbon offset. In the voluntary market, there are a number of accreditors. CityRyde is in the process of submitting its proposal for acceptance to the Voluntary Carbon Standard program. A decision could come as soon as January.

Perhaps the next question is whether someone can help sluggers capture their piece of the carbon market.

Moreover, attempts such as Fairfax's struck-down 1959 large-lot ordinance often act as blunt tools. Though a region may be interested in controlling sprawling growth emanating from a megacity at its center, such large-lot development policies might have the effect of making housing expensive and car-dependent for the towns on the periphery that are not currently in the direct orbit of the megacity.

It was with this in mind that I recently found the privately owned Dulles "Greenway" toll highway a fascinating case in growth control. Its toll structure works like this: traveling westbound (away from Washington), users pay a toll solely upon entry; traveling eastbound, users pay a toll solely upon exit. At the Greenway's easternmost terminus (near Dulles Airport at the start of the similarly named but state-owned Dulles Toll Road), the toll is nearly $5, while the first few exits at the western end are free before slowly going up in price as one travels eastbound.

The result is that this road is effectively linearly priced for travelers starting their journey in Leesburg (at the western terminus) but fixed-price for travelers starting their journey near Dulles. This makes using the Greenway an expensive proposition for any driver in this latter group not utilizing the entire length of the facility.

Suddenly, a Tysons commuter who chooses a home off of Old Ox Road or the Loudoun County Parkway doesn't suffer just a subtly more expensive commute than one who opts for a similar house in Herndon, a mere 3 miles away: it results in upwards of $2,000 a year in added commuting expenses. On the other hand, residents of the Leesburg area who commute only within their town's region without driving as far as Dulles don't bear the brunt of the eastern end of the road's more expensive toll.

My research has left me without an answer as to whether the tolling structure was designed with this purpose in mind (and because it's a private road that has more ability to self-set its rates, I doubt it), but if it was, I'm impressed.

As policymakers over the next decades increasingly embrace road tolling, such a system might just be the best way to curb sprawl without needlessly angering communities that can be reasonably independent of a central metropolis.

By the new bus: 40–60 minutes each way and $6/day: The Dulles Toll Road is unique among its peer freeways in that it includes a dedicated roadway in its center limited to the exclusive use of cars and cabs on airport business as well as authorized express buses to any destination. As a result of its travel rules, traffic on this restricted "Access Road" rarely stops flowing freely. The new Tysons Express bus service will use these lanes.

Because of the busway-like facility, the new service will provide a commute from park-and-rides near Leesburg and Ashburn to Tysons for a cost of $6 roundtrip and a bus time of 40–60 minutes, depending on the specific start–end trip.

The buses are going to be luxury coaches, complete with restrooms, reclining chairs, and free Wi-Fi.

Next steps: I have a nagging suspicion that if this is marketed properly at all (perhaps with a sign or two in the median of the Toll Road), these buses are going to be wildly popular and crowded, and that Loudoun and VDOT are going to have to find a way to add more. Similar Tysons Express Service was launched from Woodbridge last fall, and I'll admit don't have any idea how well that service has been running.

However, compared to the Woodbridge line, the Leesburg-and-Ashburn-to-Tysons route is such an obvious trip with such an onerous and expensive current commute that it's hard to suspect it won't rock success. The new express bus not only saves a peak commuter $11/day ($55/week or $2750/year) but also up to an hour a day stuck in traffic (and with free Wi-Fi to boot!)

Given the significant cost and time savings, I think there's got to be more demand for Leesburg/Ashburn-to-Tysons bus service than 385 people a day. Time will tell, but I predict an announcement this fall that Loudoun and/or VDOT will be working to double the number of buses on these routes to handle the demand.

This bus is a no-brainer. Why did it take a planned reconfiguration of Tysons just to get the players together to propose this?