Posts from February 2011

Hyattsville. Photo by Naufragio on Flickr.

Downtown. Photo by ekelly80.

Metro. Photo by Vileinist.

Waterfront. Photo by Vileinist.

Shaw. Photo by StreetsofWashington.

Dupont Circle. Photo by zanzabar03.

Got a picture that depicts the best or worst of Washington? Make sure to join our Flickr pool and submit your own photos!

This outer beltway would destroy the historic landscape on the western boundary of Manassas Battlefield—in the very year we are honoring the 150th anniversary of the First Battle of Manassas. Furthermore, this highway would not solve our traffic problems—it would actually make them worse.

If you live in Virginia, please email Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton and the CTB today telling them you oppose the Tri-County Parkway.

If you take action today, we can also let your legislators know ASAP—their session ends tomorrow!

The bait and switch

In public, the Governor has offered a list of some 900 road projects that might be funded by the new debt. This list does not include the controversial outer beltway project around DC. The public list played a key role in getting Delegates and Senators—who face reelection this year—to sign off on the risky borrowing)

But during last week's CTB meeting, the Secretary of Transportation brought up an issue not on the published agenda, asking two of the CTB members, Gary Garzynski and Doug Koelemay, if they had a resolution to offer. After describing a new highway connection that follows the route of the proposed TriCounty Parkway/Western Bypass, they said that the resolution was not quite ready yet, but that they hoped it would be by the next CTB meeting in March.

Secretary Connaughton, who used to Chair the Prince William Board of Supervisors, then said, "You guys would never make it on the Prince William County Board of Supervisors; we live for bushwhacking people."

Bushwhacked (ambushed) is exactly how we feel. It's no way to conduct the public's business. First the administration had the Secretary of Transportation hold out a list of projects that was a key to winning many legislators' support for more debt and spending. Then, off the radar screen from the legislature, the media, and the public the administration is maneuvering the revival and addition of one of the most controversial highways in the state.

In fact, the inclusion of the Western Bypass and other outer loop roads was a key factor in the public's strong rejection of the Northern Virginia sales tax increase in the public referendum of 2002.

More traffic, not less—and a waste of money

This massive road, often referred to as the "Outer Beltway" or "Western Transportation Corridor," has been repeatedly rejected because it doesn't relieve traffic on the Beltway, I-95, I-66 or local roads. In fact, it would make traffic worse by opening up thousands more acres to development and feeding more traffic from the west onto gridlocked east-west roads.

Construction of an Outer Beltway would encourage increased development in areas which lack the necessary support infrastructure (water, sewer, schools, services, roads, etc.)—making existing congestion, fiscal, and environmental problems worse. The real transportation need in western Prince William and Loudoun counties is for improved east-west connections, including transit.

On top of that, the project would siphon money away from projects that citizens of the Commonwealth actually need, like repair, maintenance, and enhancements for our aging bridges, roads, and transit systems, and addressing major bottlenecks within the already built up areas of Northern Virginia and other metro areas.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board must vote on where to spend the multi-billion dollar transportation bond package. Please take a minute to write to the CTB, and ask them not to waste limited funding on a project as destabilizing and wasteful as the Outer Beltway.

1. DC is already a school choice Mecca. We're the last places that needs the OSP.

A blogger for the National Review wrote that reauthorizing this program will "breathe life back into school choice in the nation's capital." Huh?

Poor kids in DC have a richer set of schools to choose from than almost any other city in the country. More than 40 percent of DC's schoolchildren attend schools of choice, mostly through charter schools, but also through the public school choice program within DC Public Schools known as the Out of Boundary transfer program.

The array of options and degree of innovation in DC's charter movement is stunning, ranging from a "Hospitality High" vocational high school to residential programs like SEED, from public policy themed schools like Cesar Chavez to a Chinese immersion International Baccalaureate elementary school.

We have KIPP schools, Lighthouse schools, and Friendship Academies. We have award-winning schools like the Thurgood Marshall Academy in Anacostia and E.L. Haynes in Petworth. We have bilingual schools like LAMB and Oyster. Parents clamor to get into popular DCPS schools like Stoddert in NW and the "cluster schools" on Capitol Hill.

And 19 new charter applicants are in the pipeline to be approved, expanding the choices even further. There is lots of room for improvement, but DC has an embarrassment of school choice riches.

2. The OSP lacks broad local support and political legitimacy.

Another problem with locating the voucher program in DC is that the site selection for the program is not dictated by a public policy need, but pure convenience. Because of a quirk on the US Constitution, Congress can legislate policy in the District of Columbia without seeking consent from its residents.

To be sure, there are strong local advocates for the OSP: families who stand to gain $7,500 per year, city leaders who want the extra funding for district and charter schools that comes with the program, and the supporters of the Catholic and other private schools whose tuition is offset by the scholarships.

These constituency groups would be created in any subsidy market. But why DC? And how much support does the program have from the broader community of residents and taxpayers in DC? We simply don't know.

The locally elected City Council hasn't voted on it. There has been no ballot referendum. The one locally elected representative to the Congress, non-voting Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, opposes the program. But none of that matters in the strange world of taxation without representation.

3. Public subsidies should come with public accountability.

It seems like a fair proposition that if a school receives public money it should be held accountable for results, even if it is not required to follow any of the regulations of a typical public school. That, in fact, is the premise behind charter schools.

Charters in DC do not have to hire unionized or even certified teachers. They do not have to use the same textbooks or curriculum as DCPS. They can innovate in their staffing models, their methods of instruction, and their school culture, carving out distinct identities and philosophies without seeking central office approval.

In exchange, they must demonstrate that they are teaching children the basic skills set forth in the DC state standards. They do so by participating in the state assessment system known as DC-CAS. They also cannot charge tuition or discriminate in their student admissions. Over-subscribed schools are filled by lottery.

On the other hand, Catholic schools and other private schools in DC do not have to keep up this end of the bargain. They are not accountable for the academic success of their students and they can use tuition and selective admissions to shape their student body as they wish.

Furthermore, unlike publicly funded schools, they can practice religion (80 percent of OSP students attended religious schools in 2008-2009). All of that is fine until they start accepting $7,500 per student through the Opportunity Scholarship Program. At that point, the schools become quasi-public entities but unlike charter schools, with no strings attached.

There are policy alternatives.

Providing educational opportunity for disadvantaged students is a critically important policy goal, but a voucher program in DC is not in the public interest. Instead, there are two policy options that OSP advocates might want to pursue.

First, if they want to keep the program alive, they should seek to move it to Ohio or Connecticut, the home state of the Congressional sponsors, or some other state where the voters can weigh in on whether school vouchers are a good policy and where you can demonstrate a real need to jumpstart school choice.

Second, if policymakers want to promote school choice and educational opportunities for disadvantaged students in DC, they should support policies that affect school site selection, affordable housing, and transportation, i.e. the factors that influence the commuting distance for low-income families and hence their access to school options.

Currently, it is very costly and difficult for charter schools to locate near the city center or near transit nodes. A much more direct method than vouchers for enhancing all forms of school choice would simply be to provide more school bus transportation and more generous facilities funding conditional on site selection that provides easy access to low-income communities.

Sure, there are more visitors to NYC than to Washington, but the number of visits to Central Park by New Yorkers alone is equal to the total number of visits to Washington's Mall and monuments by everyone (25 million per year).

Rock Creek Park, by comparison, gets 2 million visits per year, making it the 32nd most visited urban park in America. It edged out Audobon Park in New Orleans, a metro area 1/4 the size of Washington.

Both parks were design projects of Frederick Olmsted in the late 1800s. Both parks offer roughly the same activities to visitors.

So why is the larger park used so much less than the smaller park?

Could it have something to do with the transfer of control of Rock Creek Park to the National Park Service in 1933, whereas Central Park is managed by a conservancy on contract with the city?

With the National Park Service currently planning a rehabilitation of its 3.7 mile trail, now is a good time to envision what our park could really become.

Which of the following features of Central Park would be impossible to have in Rock Creek Park, despite being present in Central Park?

• Traffic banned after 7pm and on weekends (Rock Creek has partial closures on weekends)
  
• 25 mph speed limit (Rock Creek Parkway is 35 mph)
  
• 21 playgrounds
  
• 9,000 benches
  
• 58 miles of trails (25 miles in Rock Creek)

If New York City can support these features in Central Park, then the National Park Service can support them in Rock Creek Park as well.

But what can realistically be done?

Requests for these types of features have fallen on deaf ears at NPS before. And it seems unlikely that NPS will transfer control of Rock Creek Park over to the DC Parks and Recreation Department, particularly since the park crosses state lines.

The solution may be to establish a Rock Creek Park Conservancy to manage the park under contract with NPS. The Friends of Pierce Mill is currently raising money for a study to assess the feasibility of a conservancy for Rock Creek Park.

Interestingly, Central Park was saved from years of decline by the creation of the Central Park Conservancy in 1980 by a group of civic and philanthropic leaders. Today, the Conservancy's mission is "to restore, manage and enhance Central Park, in partnership with the public, for the enjoyment of present and future generations".

It seems more likely that NPS would agree to contract out management of Rock Creek Park to a conservancy than to relinquish control of the park to local governments. By leveraging the underused oasis that is in our midst, few initiatives would do more to make Washington a more livable, walkable city.

CSG has two job openings. The Managing Director will work with the board, manage staff, track finances, plan fundraising, and direct the office of four full-time and one part-time staff. This is a key position to keep the region's most valuable smart growth organization running effectively.

The Fundraising & Administrative Assistant will handle general office responsibilities like tracking bills, making phone calls, and the like, and also coordinate fundraising tasks like maintaining donor databases, sending out mailings and organizing events. This position is 20 hours per week and could be great for students.

CSG is also looking for graduate students who want to be Policy Fellows this summer. Unpaid fellows will work on advocacy or planning projects around affordable housing, transportation policy, land use, and more.

If you're a transportation professional, you could spend a year helping the National Park Service improve its trails in the Washington region. The National Park Service Transportation Scholars Program brings graduate students, professionals, or academic faculty in transportation to help out with projects in various parks around the nation.

This year, there is a project in our region to update the Park Service's trail strategic plan, particularly for the Mount Vernon Trail. Applications are due by Monday.

With minimal debate, Virginia Governor McDonnell's $4 billion transportation plan, which includes $3 billion in debt, is poised for final approval. All that remains is a small conference committee holding closed door meetings to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions.

In Maryland, the "Blue Ribbon Transportation Commission" chaired by Gus Bauman, who is known for his former leadership of a booster group for the Intercounty Connector, is recommending a gas tax hike and an array of other new funding.

Ironically, the cost of construction and debt for the ICC has been a major contributor to the decline in available transportation revenues in Maryland, consuming $1.1 billion of the state's federal revenues and diverting toll revenues from all of Maryland's tolled bridges and tunnels. Our partners warned about the financial risks in a 2007 report.

How will Maryland spend its money?

As the Maryland General Assembly considers a proposal to raise the gas tax, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, 1000 Friends of Maryland and seven other conservation and housing groups under the banner of "Transportation for Maryland" (T4Md) have released a position statement and specific criteria that must be met for any tax increase for transportation in Maryland. T4Md's release responds to the failure of the commission to demand fundamental reform in what Maryland is buying with its transportation dollars.

T4Md recommends the following priorities for transportation funds:

• Maintain and repair existing infrastructure, including roads and bridges before building new;
  
• Revisit near-term spending decisions and long-term project selection to fund projects that meet the growing demand for more transportation choices that save time and money and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil;
  
• Spark innovation and cost-savings through a competitive transportation solutions program; and
  
• Fund the biggest jobs creator, public transportation.

Planning for major transportation projects must also routinely consider integrated land use, urban design, street network and transit alternatives that will support more efficient development. Too often, for major transportation projects, we see a failure to fairly and objectively evaluate a range of alternatives, especially integrated land use and transportation alternatives.

Cheap loans from Virginia, big profits for road builders

In Virginia, the legislature will be granting a blank check to Governor McDonnell. It looks like most of this money—$1.5 billion supplemented by low-interest taxpayer funded loans—would go for Public Private Transportation Act (PPTA) projects and the large multinational companies that build these private toll roads.

The loans would be made by a new Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank and would be funded by siphoning $150 million from core services (education, health care, police and fire, etc) and another $250 million from road maintenance accounts as a result of the VDOT "audit."

According to Virginia Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton, the loans would be very low interest (2 to 3 percent) to companies that he says make a 14 percent return on their investment. Grants and loans are in addition to the 75 years of toll revenues signed-away to the companies.

Under the PPTA the Governor and Secretary of Transportation have total control over the negotiation of the contracts, so they will have complete discretion over the $1.5 billion fund.

As is the case with Maryland's transportation commission, Governor McDonnell has not addressed his state's $3.5 billion in structurally deficient bridges, about $1 billion in deficient pavement, or the significant operating and maintenance revenue shortfalls faced by the state's transit systems including Metro. His plan also ignores oil dependency and rising energy prices.

Would you buy this road?

Symbolic of the potential misallocation of resources, Governor McDonnell has said his top priority is Route 460. Quiz question for Northern Virginians: where is it?

This 55-mile new limited access highway would run through empty farmland and parallel to an existing highway and freight railroad. The existing highway carries far fewer trips than most other highways in Virginia and fewer than roads like Route 7, Route 50 and Route 236 in Northern Virginia.

A proposal from the private toll road builder calls for $782 million in subsidies from Virginia taxpayers and $491 million in low interest loans. Northern Virginians provide the largest share of tax revenues, so Northern Virginians will be primarily subsidizing this unneeded highway.

If Route 460 is the poster child for how not to spend our scarce resources, Governor McDonnell's failure to make a strong case to save federal Metro funding and the small share of his total package which "might" go to transit—11.5 percent—is evidence of his lack of support for transit.

So we're not buying Governor McDonnell's debt plan or a Maryland gas tax increase, unless the money is used wisely to address the priority challenges faced by our nation and our region. Anything else would be a huge waste of our tax dollars.

During my frequent runs and bicycle rides around Lake Artemesia, I am amazed by the lack of University students taking advantage of this amenity. I have come to the conclusion that the few number of students who utilize Lake Artemesia's pathway and surrounding trail system is driven both by a lack of perceived safety and simply being unaware that such an amenity exists.

With so much beautiful open space directly adjacent to the University and many of College Park's neighborhoods, it is unfortunate how cut off this land is from campus and surrounding neighborhoods, especially Old Town. Unfortunately, physical barriers, such as dangerous Route 1 and a sound wall along Paint Branch Road, along with psychological barriers, such as a perceived lack of safety, are currently discouraging more recreational use of this area.

Additionally, though the university sits less than a mile away from Lake Artemesia, the distance seems much further due to the convoluted path system and a lack of sight lines between the two destinations.

Open land that could be used as a world-class arboretum. Image from Google Maps.

A little planning and creativity could go a long way in creating a world-class arboretum right here in College Park. The solution to increasing usage lies in creating a highly pedestrian-oriented system that emphasizes safety and the natural beauty of the Paint Branch stream.

The first step is creating a safe pedestrian crossing across Route 1 near Campus Drive. This includes curb bumpouts and pedestrian islands to reduce the distance and time necessary to cross this extremely busy road. Second, a pedestrian countdown signal and shorter light signals will emphasize an intersection that is geared toward people, and not only cars.

Third, a wide, relatively straight, and well-let pathway that follows the Paint Branch Stream will shorten the distance between the university and Lake Artemesia, provide sight lines, and go a long way in increasing the perceived and real safety of this area.

Finally, a high-class pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks will avoid the unsettling concrete tunnel that currently traverses below. This bridge will enhance visual interest, improve safety, and provide a new perspective on the lake and surrounding open space.

In the long run, more amenities such as an outdoor amphitheatre, exercise equipment, a flower garden, and nature center could further enhance the attractiveness and desirability of the arboretum.

It is imperative that the university and city join forces in creating unique and desirable assets throughout College Park. We can hope than new University of Maryland President Loh will play an integral role in building this strong relationship.

An enhanced and improved public space between the university and Lake Artemesia could create a much-needed amenity, serving both permanent residents and students. An arboretum could go a long way in making College Park more than just "a livable community"; it could propel it to be a top-notch college town and a regional attraction.

With the coming of the Purple Line and East Campus, College Park has the opportunity to capitalize on improved accessibility and attractive new development and provide another highly desirable amenity and reason for people to visit and move to College Park.

It's time for College Park to step out of the shadows, build upon its natural assets, and create a highly pedestrian-oriented public space that will serve as a community gathering place and transform College Park into the college town that it should be.

Cross-posted at Rethink College Park.

These options would also add a new trail along the Piney Branch Parkway from the RCPT to Arkansas Avenue.

A related project involves the Rose Park Trail, which runs along the west side of Rock Creek Park from P Street to M Street, including through Rose Park at the northern end.

NPS plans to either resurface (Option B) or resurface and widen (Option C) this trail. Both of these options would create a better connection to M Street, where a Capital Bikeshare station might end up, and other connections as well.

There is also a proposal to move the RCPT closer to the river in the area between Pierce Mill and Blagden Avenue. The trail would replace what is now a "social trail" and the existing trail would be replaced with a gravel "interpretive trail."

The biggest project is rebuilding 3.7 miles of the RCPT between P Street and Broad Branch Road. It would create new connections to P street, Arkansas Ave, Blagden Ave, Broad Branch Road and Porter Street; realign the trail around the various bridges over the Creek; and improve the grade below Calvert street;

Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.

Obviously, I think the more ambitious options are better for both the RCPT and the Rose Park Trail. I have no opinion on the realignment.

Almost all of the public comments were in favor of the widening and repaving options, with two exceptions. One, a man from Friends of Rose Park (F.O.R.P.), opposed widening or realigning the trail, but did not voice any opposition to letting cyclists use the trail. Another wants Klingle Road reopened.

The man from F.O.R.P. was pretty angry about the trail widening. During the open house, he raised his voice at a few rangers and DDOT employees because NPS had promised F.O.R.P. that they would not widen the trail (which is apparently true, though I doubt it applied in perpetuity).

During the public comment section, many commenters noted that the trail is already a multi-use trail, not a pedestrian path as F.O.R.P. wishes to label it. One commenter noted that Rose Park has been the site of several recent crimes and that having more trail users (cyclists) might discourage crime.

The man from F.O.R.P. was also concerned about a very large elm in the park also mentioned in the Georgetown Current article. I'm confident the trail can be widened and rerouted to not only avoid harming the tree but in a way that helps it.

Those who favored the project still had other suggestions including:

• Keeping the zoo loop open 24/7/365
  
• Making sure that detours caused by construction were well signed and easy to use
  
• Keeping the trail maintained (signage indicated that the trail is currently cleared of snow; is that true?)
  
• Building a fence to separate the Rose Park trail from the playground and using brick pavers to slow down cyclists
  
• Creating an elevated crossing of M street at the Rose park trailhead
  
• Making mountain biking legal in RCP which would allow NPS to tap into some free labor
  
• Creating a connection from Harvard Street to the trail
  
• Looking at the section from M to P street
  
• Improving drainage under Porter Street
  
• Building bike parking at every NPS facility trail users might visit including bathrooms
  
• Allowing CaBi into the park

The EA will be finished by late spring with another public hearing in the summer and a decision in the fall. If you'd like to comment on this project, you can do so here.

Cross-posted at The WashCycle.