Malcolm Kenton - Greater Greater Washington

Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:12:00 EDT

At a recent public hearing, neighbors of McMillan Sand Filtration Site renewed calls to make it a park. But the only way that can happen is by developing part of it as a neighborhood, and it's up to the DC Council to make it happen.

Rendering of the future McMillan Park. All images from VMP.

Residents filled a June 6 public hearing held by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development to oppose plans to sell the derelict 25-acre site to Vision McMillan Partners, who will build homes, shops, offices and a park there. But others, including Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie and groups like the Coalition for Smarter Growth say it's the best way to bring McMillan back to life.

It would be prohibitively expensive just to make McMillan a park. Since the underground cells are made of unreinforced concrete, they would have to be demolished and rebuilt just to make them safe to enter. Allowing some private development will give the neighborhood new amenities while paying to keep the best of what's already there.

Plan preserves historic structures while creating new park

VMP's plan preserves all 24 of the plant's above-ground structures, including the vine-covered sand silos visible from North Capitol Street, along with 2 of the below-ground filtration cells. 2/3 of the site will remain open space, while the southern third will become an 8-acre public park with a pool, recreation center, and a community center with meeting rooms and an art gallery. VMP promises that this will be "one of the largest and best-designed public park spaces in the District."

Proposed site plan of McMillan redevelopment.

The historic buildings will become part of a new neighborhood with ~~about 800~~ 585 apartments and townhouses, half 10% of which will be set aside for families making between 50 and 80% of the area's median income. There will also be street-level, neighborhood-serving retail anchored by a 50,000-square-foot, full-service grocery store. Along Michigan Avenue, there will be taller office buildings with a medical focus, taking advantage of proximity to Washington Hospital Center across the street.

To make this happen, however, the DC Council must decide this fall whether to declare the land as surplus and "dispose" of it. They can do this either by selling it to VMP or granting it as-is to VMP under existing zoning, which wouldn't allow major redevelopment to occur. They could also divide the property and sell off the parts to different owners and under different zoning. They can do all of this in a single set of hearings and votes, and they should to ensure that this process happens as quickly and fairly as possible.

This rendering shows how new and old buildings will coexist at McMillan.

Throughout the summer and fall, the council will hold separate public hearings on whether to surplus McMillan and the details of VMP's plan. Meanwhile, the DC Historic Preservation Review Board is reviewing VMP's plan to redevelop the site with housing, shops, offices and an 8-acre park and will hold hearings about it this month and in September. They've already offered comments about the proposal and will make their recommendations before the end of the year.

Plan will improve stormwater collection, traffic

Groups like Friends of McMillan Park and the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club argued that McMillan is already a public space and should become a public park. However, one DMPED official I spoke to after the hearing said that the city can't afford to do the work necessary to make the site safe for public occupancy. If the District retains ownership, the site would most likely remain decrepit and fenced off indefinitely.

All 24 of the site's historic above-ground structures will be preserved.

Opponents maintain that the site's underground cells are needed to retain stormwater, mitigating the effects of frequent floods in Bloomingdale, which is downstream from McMillan. But DC Water already plans to replace two of the cells with water storage tanks, which will remain after redevelopment. Meanwhile, VMP has also promised to incorporate stormwater retention and buffers into the buildings and landscaping on the site, reducing stormwater runoff.

Another top complaint was traffic. Residents feel that the neighborhood's roads are already quite congested, especially at rush hour, and could not handle the extra trips generated by a major office, retail and residential center on the McMillan site. There is no question that the Washington Hospital Center, the city's largest non-government employer, needs better public transportation service, as it is not located near a Metro station.

Buildings will step down moving south from Michigan Avenue.

VMP plans to build a bus turnaround for shuttles between McMillan and the Brookland Metrorail station, which would operate until a planned streetcar line along Michigan Avenue is built. Moreover, North Capitol Street has been designated a Bus Priority Corridor, meaning that the city intends to make changes to the street design and traffic flows to permit faster and more frequent bus service. The development would also open new through streets across the McMillan site, improving traffic flow and connections within the larger neighborhood.

Ward 5 needs parks, but it needs housing too

Some opponents say that new development should happen elsewhere in Ward 5, like on vacant and abandoned lots along North Capitol Street or Rhode Island Avenue. While not enough resources have been dedicated to encouraging more infill development, there's no reason why that can't happen in combination with the redevelopment of McMillan.

Rendering of the completed McMillan Park.

It is true that Ward 5 needs more and higher-quality parks, recreation facilities, and community centers. But the surrounding neighborhoods and the city as a whole are growing and are need more affordable housing, as well as more diverse shopping and entertainment opportunities within walking or biking distance or a short transit ride.

VMP's current plan reflects the input of community members gathered over the course of several design charrettes that were open to the public. It satisfies the need for several types of amenities in this part of the city in a balanced way. It combines buildings that are in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods with a large park, and preserves some of the historic filtration cells and all of the silos and brick regulator houses.

We have an opportunity to transform a decrepit former public works site that has been fenced off for over 70 years into a citywide destination: a vibrant and attractive new place to live, work, shop and play that serves many of the needs of residents in this part of DC while incorporating many reminders of its unique history. The Council shouldn't waste any time taking advantage of it, as an opportunity like this won't come again soon.

If you'd like to tell DMPED and the Council to surplus McMillan and allow VMP's plan to happen, you can contact them here. Comments must be received by June 20.

111 comments

DC Sustainable Energy Utility saves energy and creates jobs

Mon, 06 May 2013 14:46:00 EDT

by Malcolm Kenton

Five years ago, the DC Council created the DC Sustainable Energy Utility to help the city's growing population use less energy. While it hasn't been perfect, DC SEU can help achieve Mayor Gray's goal of cutting the District's energy use in half by 2032.

Photo by Dept of Energy Solar Decathlon on Flickr.

Created by the Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008 and housed within the District Department of the Environment, DC SEU is dedicated to reducing the District's energy footprint. Residents and business owners directly support DC SEU through a surcharge on their electricity and natural gas bills.

In return. DC SEU will give residents reduced-price compact fluorescent light bulbs, rebates for energy-efficient appliances, or even install better insulation and duct sealing in homes. For commercial and industrial properties, which are the District's largest energy users, DC SEU provides incentives and technical assistance for large-scale commercial properties and offers rebates for energy-efficient commercial equipment and lighting.

While states like Vermont, Ohio, and Delaware have sustainable energy utilities, DC SEU is the only one that measures success in terms of both energy savings and economic development. In 2012, DC SEU served 18,795 households in 2012, 60% of which are low-income, and spent $5.2 million with locally-owned Certified Business Enterprises, or CBEs. DC SEU claims that its customers save almost $3 million annually in energy costs, while its efficiency measures produce lifetime economic benefits of almost $24 million.

However, not everyone is convinced of DC SEU's effectiveness. Employees of the utility's vaunted green jobs program, which was supposed to create 100 new jobs every year, say their work was unproductive and "meaningless." Perhaps more can be done to strengthen the training and future job placement aspects of the jobs offered through DC SEU, but one lone program can't be expected to squelch the District's persistent plague of unemployment.

Meanwhile, critics argue that DC SEU has accomplished little other than self-promotion. There certainly seems to be room for better cooperation between DC SEU and pre-existing community organizations promoting solar power installation. But there's always a learning curve when government takes over tasks previously in the purview of the private sector, no matter how poorly Pepco did at promoting efficiency, especially when Pepco owns the power lines and metering systems.

We'll be able to get a better understanding of what DC SEU has accomplished with newly available data on how much electricity, water, and gas buildings in the District consume. DC has assessed the energy and water use and carbon emissions of every District-owned building every year since 2009, but this is the first year that private owners of commercial buildings larger than 100,000 square feet are required to report their energy and water use to DDOE in compliance with new benchmarking regulation. Next year, the requirement will extend to all commercial and multifamily residential buildings larger than 50,000 square feet.

For the past two years, the DC SEU has provided a Benchmarking Help Center assist owners of large buildings assess and report energy and water use. They have fielded more questions about medical offices and small retail outlets in multifamily apartment buildings and condominiums than expected.

"We walk by these buildings every day, but we don't think about how they operate, how much energy or water they use or what's inside," says Help Center spokesperson John Andreoni. "Through the release of benchmarked and reported data, we'll gain access to this information."

This wealth of public data will increase transparency in the market and provide a more complete picture of DC buildings' energy, water, and carbon footprints than has ever been produced. As more efficiency measures are implemented, we'll be able to see how effective DC SEU actually is.

In most industries, it costs less per unit to produce greater quantities of a product. But with energy, the reverse is true. That's why investing in conservation at the consumer level is the most prudent way for governments to reduce energy use and save users money. Not only is efficiency more effective for ratepayers and taxpayers than building new power plants, even ones using renewable sources, it's also better for the environment.

Armed with more public data, DC SEU will have more information at hand to shrink the District's resource consumption and encourage building owners and managers to embrace energy efficiency. If it achieves measurable success, it will not only trim the city's environmental footprint, but keep costs low for all District ratepayers.

5 comments

Amtrak shouldn't axe the national network

Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:06:00 EDT

by Matt Johnson and Malcolm Kenton

The Brookings Institution released a report earlier this month on our national passenger rail system, Amtrak. Many news and blog articles about the study took the report to mean that if Amtrak were to get rid of its long-distance trains, the company could provide rail service without taxpayer subsidy.

Photo by Matt Johnson.

That's not actually true, nor is Brookings suggesting getting rid of long-distance trains. The crux of the Brookings report, something that has not been picked up by much of the media, is not that Amtrak should drop the long-distance trains; rather, Brookings wants the states to pick up the tab to operate them. That's not the right policy.

Amtrak operates trains across the United States. In addition to busy urban corridors like the one between Washington and Boston, the railroad also serves growing numbers of riders on corridors like Charlotte-Raleigh and Chicago-Milwaukee. Ridership has increased by over 55% since 1997, outpacing population growth, economic growth, and growth in all other travel modes.

Without long-distance trains, Amtrak is profitable? Not really

The report crunches the numbers on how many riders each route carries, how much it costs to run the trains, and how much revenue they generate. A number of people read the numbers to conclude that if Amtrak cut its 15 longest routes, Amtrak would operate in the black.

But this depends on how you define "in the black" or "operating profit." Cutting those trains would eliminate the need for a federal subsidy, but the states also contribute money for short-distance trains, and Brookings counts that as "revenue," not "subsidy."

The Adirondack, for example, runs between New York City and Montreal, via Albany. The report says that this train has a positive balance of $1.3 million. Amtrak makes a profit on it!

Not really. It costs $13.3 million to operate, and the train earns $7.0 million in revenue. That equals a loss of $6.3 million, but New York state pays Amtrak $7.6 million a year to operate the train. Add that in, and the "balance" ends up being a positive $1.3 million.

All told, the states fund Amtrak to the tune of $190.5 million a year. Counting that but no federal payment, Amtrak would have ended up with a surplus $30.9 million without the long-haul trains.

Even this doesn't mean the short-distance trains can be profitable. The report doesn't include the major cost of capital maintenance on the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor, which passenger revenues will never be sufficient to cover. Projects like the Gateway Tunnel, which will add capacity into Penn Station and new rolling stock to replace aging cars are also capital costs that can't be covered by the operating profit alone.

Amtrak's Adirondack in Westport, NY. Photo by The West End on Flickr.

Coverage or ridership?

One of the biggest problems with Amtrak from a political perspective is that people don't agree about the goal of the railroad. Is Amtrak supposed to make a profit, as conservatives tend to insist? Or is Amtrak supposed to provide a transportation service to much of the nation, as liberals tend to claim?

The Brookings report makes it clear that there really are two Amtraks.

One of the Amtraks is efficiently providing frequent short-haul service within or between metropolitan regions, such as on the Washington-Boston Northeast Corridor, Los Angeles-San Diego Surfliner, and Chicago-St. Louis Lincoln Service. A few services like these can run operating profits, but most still don't even if they're successful.

The other Amtrak provides basic service to other parts of the country. This service was never meant to make money. It was meant to include more states in the system and provide another (or in some cases the only inter-city) transportation alternative to rural communities.

Lawmakers did intend for the company to be profitable, despite evidence that it would not be, but that was changed in 1978 when it became clear that was unlikely to happen.

In this respect, Amtrak is like many transit systems. When Congress created Metro, they assumed it would run self-sufficiently without government support, too, but that didn't happen either. No transportation system, not roads, rails, or aviation, actually makes a profit when you incorporate all of the infrastructure.

Amtrak is a basic system plus extra short-distance services

The way Amtrak was set up is an important part of understanding the current situation.

In 1971, as Amtrak was coming together, a basic system was drawn on a map. This base would provide some minimum level of service across the nation, and be funded initially through federal subsidies and ticket revenue.

The Pacific Surfliner is a good example of a state partnership that grew out of the base system. In 1971, there were 3 roundtrips between Los Angeles and San Diego. These 3 roundtrips were part of the Amtrak basic system.

By 1976, California wanted more service, so it paid to add a 4th roundtrip. This train was specifically a California-subsidized train, while the other 3 were Amtrak-subsidized trains. Over the next 2 decades, California continued to add trains to the corridor, and Amtrak added 2 more to the basic system.

In 1995, California and Amtrak agreed to end having some individual trains be part of the basic system and others state-subsidized. Instead, California and Amtrak would split the cost of the San Diego-LA service proportionally. At the time, California covered 64% and Amtrak covered ~~26%~~ 36%. It's now 70%/30%.

This seems like the best approach. Amtrak, in consultation with the US Department of Transportation and the states, and input from stakeholders, including organizations representing passengers, should determine what the basic federal system should look like. If the states want additional service beyond that amount, they can pay for it, perhaps with federal assistance in the form of competitive, merit-based grants.

Several successful services have grown out of arrangements like that, including the Surfliner, the Charlotte-Raleigh Piedmont Service, and the Cascades between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia.

Congress is shifting costs to the states

However, the funding environment is changing.

Under Section 5 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement (PRIIA) Act of 2008, starting in October, California will have to cover 100% of the ~~cost~~ operating deficit of running the LA-San Diego service. That's because all Amtrak routes less than 750 miles in length must become state-supported or be terminated.

The Brookings report supports shifting almost all ~~costs~~ deficits to the states for long-distance Amtrak trains as well.

That's the wrong approach, and would likely mean the end of most of the long-distance trains.

It is difficult to expect all the states served by each of the long-distance trains to support their own routes consistently, much less to agree on schedules, service amenities, and cost allocations. Many states are already facing a huge challenge in coming up with the funding to keep existing short-distance service running under the PRIIA mandate.

Just as governors in Ohio and Wisconsin blocked high-speed rail funding, some states will refuse to pay. Many have no history of supporting train travel at all in the modern era, and have conservative or divided legislatures. Long-distance routes would either have to stop at the state line or run through without stopping within it, neither of which makes for a useful transportation service.

Other states have no history of supporting Amtrak routes financially, and conservative or divided legislatures would make it unlikely that those states would step up to the plate to fund what has so far been a federal commitment.

Right now, several states are having the discussion about whether to keep their short-haul trains. While New York, California and several other states have budgeted the required funds to keep their short-distance trains running in fiscal 2014 (starting October 1, 2013), Pennsylvania could cut its Pittsburgh-Philadelphia/New York train and Indiana could lose the Indianapolis-Chicago Hoosier State unless their citizens convince state lawmakers to appropriate the needed funds

We need a national network

It's important to keep Amtrak's long-distance trains, even though they're not profitable. A recent white paper from the National Association of Railroad Passengers elaborates on many points.

One major reason is that the long-distance trains and shorter ones fit together into a system. They're not completely isolated.

The Southwest Chief might run over 2200 miles across the nation. But many riders are not going all the way from Los Angeles to Chicago. Some are only going between Los Angeles and Flagstaff. Others ride between Albuquerque and Trinidad. And Kansas City to Chicago is a very popular pair of stations on the route.

Brookings seems to think that 400 miles is where passenger rail stops being competitive. And that may be the case. But just because the train goes more than 400 miles doesn't mean that the passenger has to.

From the whitepaper by the National Association of Railroad Passengers and the Midwest High-Speed Rail Association.

For example, the report lists the Bay Area to Sacramento Capitol Corridor as one of the examples of a good corridor. The same corridor is also covered by the Coast Starlight, which continues north of Sacramento and south of the Bay Area.

Further north, the Coast Starlight overlaps with another success story from the report: the Cascades, which runs between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, BC. It provides an additional frequency on both corridors, and connects them with each other and points in between.

Having long-distance trains also creates a market and proves the demand for short-haul trains. One of the 3 profitable routes in the system, informally dubbed the "Lynchburger," only exists because of the longer New Orleans-New York Crescent. People wanting to take that train between Lynchburg and Charlottesville and Washington were having trouble getting a ticket because the Crescent would sell out frequently.

As a result, Virginia decided to pay for a new train to run between Lynchburg and New York/Massachusetts. It's proven to be so popular that it actually covers its costs with ticket sales. And Governor McDonnell has proposed funds to extend the train to Roanoke.

But the Lynchburger probably wouldn't exist if the Crescent hadn't demonstrated the demand. It's also very difficult (though not impossible) to get the host railroads to agree to passenger trains where they don't already run.

There are many other reasons as well. Having a national network also makes possible many operating efficiencies, such as the ability to move equipment to other parts of the system to meet demand, which would otherwise be lost.

Besides, ridership on state-supported short-distance routes has only grown so much because state investment has translated into increased capacity. If a similar investment were made in long-distance trains—meaning additional frequencies or longer trains—their ridership would soar as well.

Report is useful for its data, but reaches the wrong conclusions

The Brookings report provides a wealth of insight into Amtrak's operating costs and revenues. But the report is misguided in its suggestion to turn the primary responsibility for the basic national system over to the states.

Passenger rail is an essential component of our transportation network. The 55% increase in ridership since 1997 is an indication that more federal and state investment is needed, not less.

Improving service on the long-distance trains will lead to ridership increases just as improvements to the short-haul trains did. Now is not the time for the federal government to waver in its commitment to passenger rail.

184 comments

Appreciate our furry ecosystem engineers

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:48:00 EDT

by Malcolm Kenton

The DC area's beaver population has boomed in the past 20 years, and that's a great thing.

Beaver at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Photo by Glyn Lowe Photoworks on Flickr.

It's a sign that our region's waterways, having suffered from decades of channelization, pollution, neglect and mismanagement, are starting to regain their ecological health, though much work remains to be done.

The industrious creatures' presence brings challenges when their work conflicts with human activity, but beavers, which biologists recognize as a keystone species, benefit the environment far more than many people realize.

There are many tools for coexisting with beavers and the other creatures their ponds attract, even in highly developed areas. The alternatives to coexistence tend to be inhumane, ineffectual and shortsighted.

The beaver, North America's largest native semiaquatic rodent, is often misunderstood and greatly under-appreciated. Yes, they do cut down trees and build dams that can flood parts of low-lying areas. But these activities bring a host of benefits for ecosystem health, biodiversity, other wildlife, and for water quality, erosion abatement, flood control, and even act as carbon sinks that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.

Beavers abounded throughout North America prior to Europeans' arrival, and they were almost certainly abundant in our region, which boasted a great deal of marshland and a plethora of streams, some of which humans have built over or removed by human activity.

Beavers were hunted and trapped nearly to extinction by the turn of the 20th century, mainly for their fur. But one of the greatest success stories of the modern wildlife conservation ethic has seen the industrious rodents return to almost all of their historic range.

At the same time, efforts to allow native vegetation to grow along stream beds in urban and suburban areas to improve water quality has recreated attractive habitat for beavers. They have come to inhabit creeks and streams in urban and suburban areas across the US, where their activity has at times come into conflict with human desires.

Sign at Lake Artemesia in College Park. Photos by the author.

Nature's engineers now inhabit a number of waterways in our region, including Rock Creek, the Anacostia River and its tributaries (including Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens), Lake Artemesia in College Park, Roaches Run Pond in Arlington, and Lake Accotink in Springfield, just to name a few.

Stories of trouble stemming from beavers' handiwork have appeared with regularity in the Washington-area press in the past two decades. In some cases, such as when beavers felled some of the beloved cherry trees along the Tidal Basin in 1999, trapping and removal of the beavers is unavoidable (luckily, this particular colony was able to be relocated to a more favorable site in the area). But in others, humans have harassed or killed beavers and destroyed their dams for no good reason.

One such incident occurred in Hyattsville's Magruder Park (located, aptly enough, on Beaver Dam Park Road) in the spring of 2011. One or more beavers dammed up the small stream draining into the Northwest Branch of the Anacostia on the park's west end, creating a small pond, which also covered a small portion of the adjacent parking lot. This did not seem to present a significant inconvenience to park visitors, and park managers cut a hole in the dam in attempt to let some water drain while retaining the beavers. But sadly, the dam was found broken up one morning in April along with the carcass of its architect.

This beaver-created pond still stands at Magruder Park in Hyattsville. Photo by the author.

The trouble with exterminating beavers is that, as long as the habitat in question remains reasonably healthy, other beavers are likely to come to the same spot. Each year, beaver parents evict their one or two-year-old offspring from their lodge and they go in search of new homes. And no matter how many times humans destroy a beaver dam, beavers will keep rebuilding it.

So in places like Magruder Park, unless park managers were to remove all the vegetation around the stream and keep the area clear—which would be undesirable—to keep removing beavers each time they show up is to fight a losing, and ecologically foolish, battle.

It is far better for people to learn to coexist with their wild neighbors. In cases where flooding or high water levels are the issue, several devices exist to regulate water levels while leaving beaver dams intact and tricking beavers so that they do not seek to raise the water level.

Trees can be protected by wrapping their trunks in cylindrical cages, and a low fence will keep beavers away from a particular group of trees. Beavers tend to fell fast-growing tree species that have little commercial value, and this culling makes room for more, bushier growth the next spring, restoring a more diverse mix of flora to the wetland area over time. Beavers largely subsist on seaweed, clover, and land and aquatic plants other than trees.

Beaver ponds attract and sustain other wetland-dependent creatures—such as turtles, herons, otters, ducks, and many types of birds and fish. They also do a good job of retaining stormwater runoff, allowing pollutants to settle out before the water moves downstream. Beavers have also become a unique cultural asset to cities and towns: they are local celebrities in places like the Bronx River in New York and Chicago's Lincoln Park.

But perhaps the best-known "downtown beaver" success story comes from Martinez, California, a Bay Area city that rehabilitated part of the creek that runs through the center of town. When a beaver colony established itself there in 2008, the local government threatened to have them removed. But citizens' organization Worth a Dam rose to the creatures' defense, and the city has come to celebrate its newfound furry, feathered and finned denizens, which have even attracted visitors from around the country and overseas (many of whom arrive on Amtrak).

The challenge of coming to terms with beavers in urban areas is a microcosm for the necessary large-scale work of reconciling human needs and desires with the natural systems that sustain all life. In our region, we can and should find ways to allow, and even help, beavers to do what they do best: maintain healthy wetlands. In return, we will enjoy cleaner water, better regulated stream flows, less severe flash floods, and the chance to interact with a wide array of wild creatures.

30 comments

Bigger park, taller buildings on tap for McMillan site

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:41:00 EDT

by Malcolm Kenton

DC Water will temporarily use two former water filtration cells in the McMillan Sand Filtration Site to store excess rainwater and mitigate flooding in neighborhoods like Bloomingdale beginning in spring 2014. That decision forces Vision McMillan Partners (VMP) to redraw its plans to transform the site into a mixed-use neighborhood.

Rendering of redesigned park space at the south end of McMillan. Image from Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects.

The previous plan called for new rowhouses on the south end of the site to extend the character of the existing neighborhoods. A park in the middle would have separated the townhouses from denser mixed-use towers on the north end.

Instead, VMP will now construct a larger park on the south end, build new rowhouses in the middle, make the buildings on the north end a bit taller, and construct more roads through the development.

VMP's next step is to design the buildings themselves. They will hold a community meeting about preliminary building designs on Saturday, April 20, 10 am-noon at a location to be announced.

Under the Northeast Boundary Neighborhood Protection Project, developed by the Mayor's Task Force on the Prevention of Flooding, DC Water will store excess rainwater runoff in the two cells as a temporary remedy for flooding. In the long run, DC Water's Clean Rivers Project will build large underground sewers to store water by around 2022. When that is done, the two cells will be drained and will become available for use, potentially as unique public spaces.

The now larger park along Channing Street NW will feature an open grassy lawn. One of the filtration cells to store excess runoff will be underneath part of the park. The other cell lies at the site's northeast corner, and the original development plans already called for retaining it.

Rendering of the newly-designed park space, seen from North Capitol Street at Channing Street NW. Image from Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects.

At the east end, next to the park's main entrance on North Capitol Street, will be a small pond that echoes the now-underground Tiber Creek which once flowed across the site. The pond will also serve as a reservoir for the site's stormwater runoff, allowing pollutants to settle out of it before it enters the combined sewer system.

Next to the pond will be an amphitheater and a community center with a green roof. The west end will feature a sculpture garden and plaza, with a spray jet fountain and smaller park spaces between the two, alongside the open grassy area. A tree-lined "Olmstead Walk" will surround the entire development, including the park.

Vision McMillan Partners' new planned layout for the site.

The office and residential buildings with ground-floor retail on the north end will be fewer than under the original plan (5 instead of 9), but taller. Instead of being in a stand-alone building, the "premium" grocery store will be on the ground floor of a 6-story apartment building.

The plan won't set back the buildings along North Capitol Street as far as under the original plan. Much of the office space will remain devoted to medical offices.

There will be less public space in the non-park areas of the site. The North Service Court (one of the two rows of original sand towers and regulator houses that sit on the site today) will feature wider sidewalks, but there will also be more through roads. Douglas and Evarts Streets will extend across the site (Douglas using the South Service Court as its median), a new Middle Street NW will use the North Service Court as its median, and a new Half Street NW will run north-south from Michigan Avenue down to Douglas Street.

The new plan integrates affordable housing throughout the development, instead of having a particular apartment building dedicated to affordable senior housing.

6 comments

Should streetcar go to Minnesota Ave or Benning Rd Metro?

Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:45:00 EDT

by Malcolm Kenton

Once the initial H Street segment opens (now estimated for early 2014 at the earliest), the next step for DC's streetcar system is to extend the line east across the Anacostia River. DDOT will present the options in a report this month, but major decisions remain, such as whether to end the line at Minnesota Avenue or Benning Road Metro stations (or both).

H Street streetcar platform between 5th & 6th Streets NE. Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

DDOT staff and AECOM consultants told the approximately 50 attendees at a Nov. 27 public meeting that the government is focused on completing a streetcar line linking Ward 7 to Georgetown via H Street by 2025.

Its moniker, the "One City Line," references Mayor Vincent Gray's campaign slogan, which has become an official slogan of the District government. A study on the Union Station-Georgetown segment of the line will begin next year.

Having held the final public hearings as part of the study's final concept development phase, the study team will release its final report next month, which will be followed by the environmental impact review process.

Among the decisions left to be made is whether the Minnesota Avenue or Benning Road Metro station will be the line's (initial) eastern terminus, or if streetcars will serve both stations. The final report will present options for either terminus, but not both simultaneously. DDOT staff acknowledged that if the community put significant pressure on the DC Council to pursue having the streetcar serve both stations, that would be possible.

The other key unresolved question is whether streetcars will run alongside the curb or in the road's median as they continue east along Benning Road. The main disadvantage of curbside running is that it takes away on-street parking spaces, but median running means either widening the road or taking travel lanes away from motor vehicles.

Options for streetcar track placement at Minnesota Avenue Metro. Yellow indicates proposed streetcar platform locations; turn-around track shown in purple. Image from DDOT/dcstreetcar.com.

At either Metro station, both streetcar tracks will merge into one and extend briefly onto off-street right-of-way to allow streetcars to pause for several minutes and reverse direction. To be determined is whether this terminal track will be in the median of Minnesota Avenue or between the road and the Metro tracks (if Minnesota Avenue is chosen as the terminus), or in the median of East Capitol Street versus into the small parking lot next to the Benning Road Metro entrance escalator.

Options for streetcar track placement at Benning Road Metro. Image from DDOT/dcstreetcar.com.

Keeping the proposed streetcar configuration at Minnesota Avenue would mean taking at least one travel lane from the avenue. That would turn it from a 4-lane road with only a double yellow line in the middle to a 3-lane road, 2 regular lanes plus a center turn lane or a reversible lane like the one on Connecticut Avenue.

The study determined, however, that streetcar operation would not worsen existing traffic congestion at the Minnesota-Benning intersection, which is already over its designed capacity.

At Benning, having the terminus in the small Metro parking lot would allow streetcars going both directions to serve one platform and provide more convenient access to Metro, but would make it more difficult and expensive to extend the line farther east in the future. Having the terminal station and turn-around track in East Capitol Street's median, on the other hand, would make it simple to continue the line east to Capitol Heights Metro.

The study found there to be a "huge" demand for transit in the Benning Road corridor. The X bus line is overcrowded, and there are now more employment opportunities and activity centers in Ward 7, the Minnesota-Benning intersection being one of them. DDOT is also doing a lot of work on pedestrian safety around this intersection and along the block of Minnesota Avenue leading to the Metro station.

During the first round of public hearings, community members told DDOT they wanted to see bus and streetcar service integrated so that they don't duplicate each other. They also wanted more efforts at placemaking along the corridor, such as public art.

It will be possible to build streetcar tracks across the twin-span bridge that carries Benning Road across I-295 and the CSX railroad tracks, but it will require raising the entire road surface to the height of the tracks above the undergirding, or building new undergirding lower than the existing. There is enough room to do this while maintaining required highway and railroad clearances.

19 comments

Run the Anacostia streetcar on MLK Avenue (Jan 18, 2011)
Minnesota-Benning road connection would substantially cut traffic (Aug 19, 2009)
Reserve public land for a street connection at Minnesota and Benning (Jul 7, 2009)
DDOT reveals more streetcar details in Trinidad (Apr 21, 2010)
DDOT gets closer to an Anacostia streetcar alignment (Jun 30, 2011)

New websites crowdsource development ideas

Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:55:00 EDT

by Malcolm Kenton

GGW's I Wish This Were series of posts imagined better uses for vacant properties and bad public spaces. 2 entrepreneurial DC brothers have taken this concept to the next level, with websites that harness the power of crowdsourcing to help shape neighborhood development.

Photo by Payton Chung on Flickr.

Ben and Daniel Miller, sons of Gallery Place developer Herbert Miller, created 2 crowdsourcing websites. Popularise, unveiled in December, lets residents vote on development ideas, and Fundrise, its 2-month-old cousin, lets them invest in businesses and developments.

The services started in DC and are also available for Baltimore, Oklahoma City, Seattle, and Mandurah, Australia, with more cities on the way.

Popularise lets local developers and small businesses post project proposals and receive public input. Users can submit ideas for what they would like to see in these developments, and read ideas submitted by others. If you like someone else's idea, you can click "Build it!" to vote for it, and the developer may incorporate the ideas that get the most votes.

In addition to developers, property owners may solicit advice from Popularise users. The site lets owners post a chalkboard in front of their properties that asks "What would YOU build here?" or "How would you build your city?" This is another variation on the meme developed in post-Katrina New Orleans, where people were given "I wish this were [blank]" stickers and invited to stick them on boarded-up buildings to send a message to their owners.

The Miller brothers began looking at commercial real estate 2 years ago, relying on traditional funding sources such as private equity firms and accredited investors. But they realized that these investors didn't really know the neighborhoods they bought into. So they came up with a new business model that relies on small investments from people who live and work around the property in which they choose to take a stake.

Ben Miller cautions developers against taking the word of the majority of Popularise users as final, calling it "a conversation, not an election." "The most popular girl in school is not necessarily the girl you want to be married to," he explained. "People may not see that the fifth most popular idea could actually be best for the area."

The newer site launched by the Miller brothers offers users the chance to actually put their money behind their votes. Fundrise is a "place-based investment platform." For even small dollar amounts, people can buy shares of ownership in real estate or businesses. Investors help the kinds of venues they want to get off the ground, as well as hopefully to earn a return.

Fundrise finds business opportunities that they think people in the community will be excited about and manages people's investments in them, including distribution of dividends and regular financial reporting, plus investor perks. Like stocks and mutual funds, the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates investments in Fundrise projects.

Fundrise's first project is the creation of a "curated culinary and fashion boutique," called Marketto, at 1351 H Street NE. Marketto will give many local vendors a place to market their food and clothing. Fundrise has raised $216,300 for the project so far, about 65% of their goal of $325,000. Fundrise will pay dividends to investors from the rent that Marketto pays to building owner Fundrise 1351.

If the Popularise and Fundrise concept expands, it will give citizens the power to be proactive when it comes to what is built in their city, rather than just reactive to whatever big developers propose. With tools like this, people can actually shape the kind of development they want in their cities. For example, if you want to see a small healthy food market near you instead of a mini-mart, you can get like-minded fellow citizens together to invest in one.

People in our region increasingly choose vibrant, walkable places that are connected by public transportation and bicycle networks. If more developers and businesses follow the Miller brothers' lead, neighborhood people-power can further drive the decision making progress, and more residents will get what they want.

4 comments

How can DC grow without losing its character? (Oct 5, 2012)
Gateway Market: "Chicago-projects quality" (Jul 31, 2008)
ARTS report balances bars and arts, requirements and bonuses (Sep 9, 2009)
Improved access to Cafritz development is a step forward (Sep 27, 2011)
Can Big K catalyze commercial development in Anacostia? (Jun 13, 2012)

Sequestration could hurt Metro, other regional projects

Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:51:00 EDT

by Malcolm Kenton

Because the Congressional "supercommittee" failed to agree on a deficit reduction plan, WMATA is likely to lose about $12 million from the federal government in 2013. This could spell trouble for an agency that has already had to raise fares to keep up with its significant capital needs.

Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.

Under the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011, without a supercommittee deal, nearly every item in the federal budget will suffer a 10% "sequestration" effective January 1.

Most of the nation's transit systems will be protected from this cut because they get formula grants from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which is immune from sequestration. WMATA, however (like Amtrak), receives a direct annual appropriation from general taxpayer funds, $150 million a year for 10 years to make needed repairs that was part of 2008's Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, or PRIIA.

WMATA got that $150 million in fiscal 2012 (which ends September 30). A continuing resolution approved last week will continue this funding level through at least March 31, 2013. But after that, sequestration would take hold.

The HTF gets most of its money from gasoline taxes. Thanks to Congress's refusal to raise the gas tax, even to keep up with inflation, there hasn't been enough money in the fund to meet its obligations for the past several years. Thus, Congress has chosen to infuse general fund money into the HTF to keep it solvent.

These general fund infusions may be subject to sequestration, but none of the HTF's obligations to the states and transit agencies will be reduced. The most likely result is that Congress will have to infuse more general fund money into the HTF sooner. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will have some leeway in applying the sequestration within each federal department and agency.

The WMATA cut is not the only way sequestration could hurt our region. If OMB chooses to apply the cuts retroactively to TIGER grants that the US Department of Transportation has already awarded, this would delay the completion of TIGER-funded projects like bus priority improvements and completing the Anacostia Trail.

Another possible victim is the Silver Line, much of whose funding comes from the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts program, which is not funded by the HTF. Many other capital projects in the region, including the Purple Line light-rail corridor, have yet to receive federal funding, and any reduction in the amount of money available for grants would put them even farther back in line.

The only alternative to sequestration is another grand debt-reduction deal from Congress. But such a deal could hurt some programs more than sequestration would, in order to preserve others. Even transit-friendly members of Congress from Maryland and Virginia may vote to axe Metro in the end if it means preserving other pots, such as Pentagon spending, that provide huge sources of employment for their constituents.

While members of Congress are campaigning in their districts throughout October, consider taking an opportunity to remind them how important investments in infrastructure that reduces traffic congestion and enhances mobility in a sustainable manner are to you and to the region's economy.

You can also make the point that we could avoid this whole sequestration mess altogether if they could muster the gumption to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, place a small tax on financial transactions, or finally raise the gas tax.

Besides, deficit spending really isn't a bad thing, especially with the economy in recession.

19 comments

Should WMATA spend capital faster or save for operating? (Mar 18, 2010)
Debt deal could mean more painful cuts for transportation (Aug 1, 2011)
Leftover capital money could save Metro service (Apr 14, 2010)
Next stop: Metro funding (Aug 3, 2009)
GOP continuing resolution cuts WMATA, DC funds (Feb 12, 2011)

New McMillan plan blends growth and preservation

Mon, 07 May 2012 10:58:00 EDT

by Malcolm Kenton

The developers of DC's McMillan Sand Filtration Site have listened to community concerns, from open space to traffic to transit, and created a plan for a new community that residents should one day see as a city landmark and a source of civic pride.

Photo by the author.

Envision McMillan released a revised plan in March for the long-awaited redevelopment that will transform the historic, off-limits site. It blends mixed-use office and apartment buildings with ground-floor retail, single-family townhomes, and open space to augment and enhance the surrounding neighborhoods.

As with all development plans of this scope, not everyone in the neighborhood is happy. While the current plan leaves 55% of the site as open space, some want the entire site to be a park. Others want to incorporate urban agriculture and renewable energy production, and a few want development limited to just a grocery store or public market, library and recreation center.

Residents in these camps concerned about development at the site have organized two groups, Friends of McMillan Park and Sustainable McMillan. The groups' leaders claim that Envision McMillan virtually ignored the ideas community members presented in the various public listening sessions.

In fact, the team has significantly altered the plan based on community feedback. It now has much more open space, with 13.55 acres overall, including a 4-acre central park and 8 acres of large, public, open spaces. The team also added a grocery store, a library and a community center.

The plan mixes preservation and growth

Envision McMillan comprises 9 architecture, design, landscape architecture, and consulting firms selected as the site's developer by the DC Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. The District government bought the site from the federal government in 1987 and has sought to develop it ever since.

Conceptual plan for the site. Image from Envision McMillan.

The majority of the existing above-ground structures on the site would be retained and repurposed. The plan calls for preserving more than one of the underground sand filtration cells for visitors to explore. The historic McMillan Fountain, currently in storage at the adjacent federally-owned McMillan Reservoir, would sit in a prominent location in a public plaza on the site.

The southern row of cylindrical sand silos would form the border between the project's central park and a cluster of row houses, which would match the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. Stormwater runoff from the site would be completely captured on site by using state-of-the-art runoff management techniques.

Envision McMillan seeks to draw a grocery store and an eclectic mix of local retailers. Developers hope to create approximately 4,000 jobs at all levels as part of new healthcare office space on the northern end (adjacent to the VA hospital and Washington Hospital Center).

Additionally, the city plans to sponsor job-training programs to help District residents qualify for these jobs. 100 housing units will be designated as "affordable senior housing," and a mix of workforce and market-rate housing will be available throughout the site.

The team responds to community concerns

The next step for Envision McMillan and project supporters is to win the public-relations battle by convincing residents of the area, and the entire city, that the current plans represent the most appropriate balance of competing community needs and desires.

Traffic has been a central area of concern for nearby residents. First Street NW, in particular, is often bumper-to-bumper at rush hours between Michigan and New York Avenues, and Bloomingdale residents fear this will get worse once new homes, offices, and shops open up at McMillan. Envision McMillan analyzed current traffic to help create a plan to efficiently move people to and from the site, both by car and by other modes.

The study showed that there are no safe pedestrian crossings of North Capitol Street between Michigan Avenue and Channing Street. The restrictions on left turns from North Capitol onto Michigan from both directions cause more traffic to flow onto neighborhood streets. Cut-through traffic also overtaxes the alleys in the neighboring Stronghold neighborhood.

Envision McMillan's traffic plan calls for building 2 new through streets across the site from North Capitol to First NW, reducing traffic flow on existing neighborhood streets. It also recommends 2 new signalized intersections along North Capitol, and widening the North Capitol and Michigan Avenue intersection. Almost all of the parking on the site would be below ground.

But perhaps more importantly, the plan would enhance access to the site by non-automobile modes, thereby reducing the number of cars that will have to move through the surrounding neighborhoods. It proposes a transit hub on the north end with frequent Circulator buses connecting to the Brookland Metro station, a hiker-biker trail along North Capitol for the length of the site, several new sidewalks, and two Capital Bikeshare stations on the site—one near the grocery store and one in the middle of the mixed-use medical office/retail complex.

Yes, the surrounding neighborhood will feel growing pains as new residents, shoppers, and medical clinic patients move in. But maintaining the site as it is, empty and off-limits to the public, benefits nobody.

The only viable alternative to the status quo is some form of development. Putting this residential and business development in an urban neighborhood where people can take advantage of existing infrastructure at modest incremental cost makes the most economic and environmental sense. The long-term benefits to the region of developing the site in a conscientious way far outweigh the short-term costs.

Envision McMillan has proposed a plan for intelligent development and adapted it around reasonable concerns from the community. The plan will create a desirable place to live, work, and shop that retains both the character of the neighborhood and the uniqueness of this historic site.

143 comments

McMillan visions take shape (Nov 22, 2010)
At McMillan site, compromise could be beautiful (Oct 29, 2010)
Build a circle at North Capitol and Irving (May 5, 2009)
Thomas plan would split McMillan from affected residents (Nov 1, 2011)
Get to know the McMillan water filtration plant (Sep 22, 2011)

Jarrett Walker: Transit's job is to create freedom

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:18:00 EDT

by Jenifer Joy Madden and Malcolm Kenton

Transportation guru Jarrett Walker had some criticism for the Metrobus map, and cautionary words for planners of the DC Circulator, streetcar, and similar circulators in Tysons Corner, when speaking to audiences last week in DC and Silver Spring.

Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.

Walker, a native of transit mecca Portland, Oregon, was here to sell his new book, Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives.

He acknowledged that many ascribe to him an anti-rail bias, but insisted that the goal of transit should be to provide fast, frequent, reliable service in the most cost-effective way possible, regardless of mode.

In his talk, he suggested that a great measure of transit's effectiveness is the isochrone—a map showing where you can travel on transit within a given time. Transit providers should aim increase the number of destinations within any given isochrone.

30-minute isochrone from the White House. Image from Mapnificent.

He encouraged cities to move away from the historic North American penchant for putting a bus stop at nearly every corner (something not done in the rest of the world), and expect riders to walk a little more so that service is faster for everyone. Shortening trip times reduces the cost of providing service, which usually means that more service can be provided. It also encourages more people to ride, because it increases the area of the isochrone.

Transit routes that deviate off a direct path to serve poorly-located shopping centers, housing cul-de-sacs, and insular complexes, inconvenience through-riders and make transit less attractive, he said. Anything not built "on the way" is essentially saying, "I only want as much transit service as I alone can support," because those destinations can't be pooled with any other destinations. Once urban areas have taken this built form, it becomes expensive to provide service to them.

He ripped into WMATA's Metrobus map, pointing out that almost every route is shown in red, regardless of how often it runs. That's not helpful, he says, because it's like a roadmap "which doesn't differentiate between a highway and a gravel road."

Section of the DC Metrobus map. Image from WMATA.

Maps like this, which Walker laments are all too common amongst US transit systems, put the onus on the rider to first figure out what routes get them to where they want to go, then consult a complicated schedule to find out how often it runs.

Instead, he said, the map's design should make it as easy as possible on the rider by displaying routes based on frequency. Routes with the most frequent and round-the-clock service "should scream out at you," he insisted. For example, putting routes in a different color would let riders know at a glance if they could easily jump on board and not bother with a timetable.

Poor map design and inscrutable signpost information cost more than just riders. In some cities, it's become so frustrating that officials have thrown up their hands and turned to another form of transit altogether. Walker finds that unconscionable: cities shouldn't build streetcars or new bus systems simply because the existing system is incomprehensible. He pointed to the DC Circulator as a prime example of unnecessary duplication that squanders public resources that would be better spent making the most-used Metrobus routes more frequent and user-friendly.

His point about circulators is instructive for Tysons Corner, where five are planned. Walker says when good bus service is already there, adding circulators can be redundant and wasteful. In Canberra, Australia, planners faced with a similar situation saved lots of money by choosing simply to rebrand a section where many existing bus lines converged as one cohesive service (the "Green Line") with clock-face regularity.

He acknowledged that streetcars do tend to drive economic development because of their perceived permanence and attractiveness compared to buses. But he urged planners to remember that 50 years from now, any economic development potential today will be distant history, but the travel time riders gain from a bus which can navigate around obstacles will endure. He further cautioned against thinking of laying rails as signifying permanence, since most of DC's original streetcar tracks have been paved over.

Above all, Walker emphasized, transit agencies and the governments that fund them should see their job as enhancing freedom by making as much of the region as possible accessible by frequent, reliable service. The other things transit does, such as spurring economic development, providing jobs, protecting the environment and enhancing social equity, are all secondary to this primary purpose of transit.

If you missed Jarrett last week, you can watch his presentation to the Montgomery County Planning Department, below:

35 comments

New bill would create DC transit board (Dec 15, 2009)
Hear Human Transit's Jarrett Walker in DC or Silver Spring (Feb 1, 2012)
Streetcars aren't toys, buses aren't about respect (Nov 20, 2010)
Build streetcars where growth will cover the cost (Feb 14, 2012)
WMATA creates 15-minute bus map (Nov 21, 2010)